Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 January 30

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 29 January	31 January >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:53, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Octopie

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:NCORP. Available coverage is either routine, trivial, or not independent of the subject. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:46, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:46, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:46, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:46, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:46, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also note WP:PROMO per the tone of the article, with sentences like "Octopie started in 2016 when Micah Brooke, Lon Strickland and Isaac Krauss decided they wanted to create a new kind of animation company that focused on independent creators, developing IP, and cultivating fandom." The rest of the article is more of that. --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 16:04, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Tone of composition is not a valid reason for deletion as that can be fixed if the entity is otherwise notable. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:01, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Löschen per nom. No significant coverage, just brief mentions. S0091 (talk) 17:04, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kommentar I think the only citation, at this time, that would count toward 'significant coverage' would be the Starace 2017 piece in International Opulence Magazine.--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 03:25, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that publication can be considered reliable, it doesn't appear to publish a masthead or any other editorial information. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 07:31, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I recall that I got the publisher from a masthead, so I went looking for it again ... If you go to http://www.internationalopulence.com/current-past-issues/, and leaf through one of the magazines, such as Spring 2018, you'll find a masthead on the last page of or that following the table of contents. Now, thinking on reliable sources, I'd venture that some of the unreliable listings at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources likely sport mastheads, but that's a guess. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:59, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We're veering off topic, but I think it's more that failure to publish a masthead is a strong indicator of unreliability, rather than the presence of a masthead being a safeguard against it. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:38, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the creator of the article and am a HUGE fan of Octopie. I have since made modifications to the page in hopes to prevent the deletion of it. --DaJerm (talk) 19:17, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DaJerm, while I appreciate you cleaning up the article a bit, you don't appear to have added any examples of significant coverage in an independent source, which is really the crux of the issue here (i.e. articles with one or more paragraphs of coverage devoted to the history and workings of Octopie, rather than just brief mentions crediting them). _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:41, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rosguill, Gotcha, thanks for the clarification. I will fix that shortly and update this page when I do. Much appreciated. DaJerm (talk) 19:44, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rosguill Thank you for the feedback. I have since removed content that can not be properly cited and fixed a few citations. Looking forward to hearing your thoughts on the article and hopefully we can now remove it from "recommended for deletion" DaJerm (talk) 00:44, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but the citations that you've added are not examples of significant coverage in secondary sources. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:50, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. qedk (t 桜 c) 06:37, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Louise-Marie von Eppinghoven

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No claim of notability, and no substantial discussion of her in references, just genealogical information. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:27, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:27, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:27, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:40, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:40, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - from what I can tell, she ~~appears to be a princess~~ related to Leopold I of Belgium. While people aren't notable through their connection to other people, people who are related to kings tend to be. I don't understand ~~Belgian~~ but she appears to be mentioned in this book: [1]. This museum collection (a source in English) appears to include items that she owned [2]. There might be more in-depth coverage in offline sources. Clovermoss (talk) 02:11, 31 January 2020 (UTC) Clarification: strikng my !vote because it isn't as well-thought out as the opposes below. Clovermoss (talk) 07:58, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability is not WP:INHERITED, even for royalty, which she apparently is not. No evidence for claim she "appears" to be a princess...that title is not automatically applied to children of children with mistresses... No WP:SIGCOV. Fr and Nl-wikis have just passing mention in her father's articles. Reywas92^Talk 04:52, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Reywas92: Noted. I've struck that part of my !vote. I assumed she was a princess because she was related but that doesn't seem to be the case. Clovermoss (talk) 05:07, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:INVALIDBIO. The source mentioned by Clovermoss is in Dutch, and it's just about how the subject was trying to get money from the estate of Carlota of Mexico and from Prince Charles, Count of Flanders to pay off her mortgage. I don't think that's the basis for an article. I note that we don't have articles on her parents so there isn't a realistic merge target.----Pontificalibus 07:43, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:INHERITED applies here. Tried to find some more sources in Dutch, but anything I could find only had passing mentions, none making her close to passing WP:GNG. Achaea (talk) 09:41, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being granddaughter of someone notable does not make a person notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:08, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

keep? she isn't in many online sources but there is a substantial collection of her belongings at the Otago Museum in NZ - dresses, ornaments, gloves, small objects. They are a valuable part of the collection due to knowledge about the aristocracy of the time. So she's notable for that, but I suppose it doesn't necessarily lead to wikipidean notability? TreeReader (talk) 16:53, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - possibly a royal bastard, maybe not. A large legacy to a major museum could be a reason to include, but that's only one reason. I'd liek to see more than the bare minimum for wannabe royalty. Bearian (talk) 17:40, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep - nomination withdrawn. Per the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)#Clarification_regarding_NSEASONS; while this nomination followed the advice at WP:NSEASONS, it seems that common practice is at odds with the advice given in the notability guidelines. WP:NSEASONS likely needs clarification, but it seems that this nomination is unnecessary. (non-admin closure) — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 21:21, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Charlotte Independence season

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NSEASONS. It is not possible to create an article consisting "mainly of well-sourced prose", as this season has not even started yet. WP:NSEASONS clearly says that this should remain a redirect to the team article until that can be satisfied. I made it a redirect but was reverted by the page creator.

Note: I am proposing that this be made into a redirect, not deleted. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 21:26, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:31, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:31, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kommentar the first game is February 12, this AfD won't close until at least February 6, what's the point of this? SportingFlyer T·C 21:33, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SportingFlyer, I've done what I could to avoid taking this to AfD, and followed the guidelines. This should remain a redirect until later in the season, but others reverted contrary to guidelines. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 21:35, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree - while I typically would be a delete/redirect vote, I simply do not see the utility of this AfD. SportingFlyer T·C 22:16, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SportingFlyer, Well fine. !Vote against it if you want. I tried the reasonable approach of turning it into a redirect until the season gets going, I was forced to come here due to running out of other less time intensive options (due to others not following guidelines with article creation). — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 22:21, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Insertcleverphrasehere Your were forced to come here? What, to waste everyone's time with the worst nomination I've seen for a long time? There's already some prose in the article. I can't comprehend why you are doing this. Nfitz (talk) 07:08, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nfitz, I followed the guideline at WP:NSEASONS to the letter. I came here because I was reverted after converting to a redirect per that guideline. Note there is no guarantee that in a week’s time that someone will write prose for this article, even if sufficient sources exist. The 2019 season article has near zero prose and should also be redirected to the team article per WP:NSEASONS. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 09:32, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't actually follow the guideline to the letter - the guideline says only to redirect if no sourced prose can be created, which does not appear to be the case for either this or the 2019 season. Unless these seasons fail WP:GNG (and a quick search shows the Charlotte Post has already written a couple articles on the season) then both these articles are notable and should be kept and improved. SportingFlyer T·C 10:11, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you, User:Insertcleverphrasehere actually think that deleting a seasons article that is being actively worked on, that already contains prose at the beginning of the season, when previous seasons already exist, without even a talk page discussion, then I'd suggest you don't understand the guideline! Even if there was no prose - what's the rush? Why not just add some prose if you are concerned there isn't enough. Nfitz (talk) 17:58, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nfitz, Read the nomination, I wasn't proposing deletion, I was proposing redirection. I came here as a forum for discussion. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 18:01, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You proposed a redirection that deleted all the text in the article - and didn't even attempt to merge the deleted text into the move target. I'm not sure why you are arguing semantics - either way, if you actually still defend such a poor redirect and AFD after you've been told by everyone else you are wrong, then I question your competence to redirect articles, and suggest that a topic-ban is in order! Nfitz (talk) 18:05, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nfitz, As I said, WP:NSEASONS says that team season articles should consist "mainly of well-sourced prose". Otherwise it should be redirected to the team article. This article does not consist "mainly of well-sourced prose". Most of the season articles for this team fail this criteria, including this one. If you guys want to argue 'keep' based on the new season starting in the future and under the unfounded presumption that prose will be created when that happens; well, be my guest. I can't stop you. But it doesn't reflect on my proposal. Most of the other past years of this team also fail WP:NSEASONS, so I have zero expectation that that this will be expanded, even if sources become available to do so in several weeks. If previous year's articles were packed with prose, you might have a point, but they are not. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 18:48, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please withdraw this time-wasting nomination. Stop trying to be a wikilawyer. Nfitz (talk) 21:37, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've cited the relevant policy pages taht justify the nomination. I have asked for some clarification on the talk page of the sports notability page. I have nothing more to say and won't be withdrawing the nomination as I consider it within policy (actually regardless of the outcome of the discussion at the sports notability talk page, as it applies in either case). — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 23:23, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not having prose isn't a WP:NSEASONS failure, and in any case you initially redirected this for being WP:TOOSOON. Withdrawal would be classy and appreciated, as you're now standing on an incorrect policy interpretation. SportingFlyer T·C 23:40, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You, User:Insertcleverphrasehere have failed to quote anything that justifies redirect. While WP:NSEASONS suggests there be a lot of prose, in terms of redirect, it only says It is strongly recommended that such articles be redirected to the team page if no sourced prose can be created.. However the article DOES have prose. So that rules on redirection on that basis. And even if it didn't have prose, then it would be very unusual that none could be created. I have no idea why you are choosing this hill to die on. Nfitz (talk) 02:19, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nfitz, Holy moly... please calm the hell down. You are acting like I've threatened your child or something. There is a grey area in the guideline that I am currently investigating (this article is not 'mainly prose', nor is it likely to magically become so once the season starts; previous year's articles have been abandoned). I'm currently waiting on more comments regarding this over at the WP:NSPORTS talk page. Nobody is going to die if this stays open a few more days or... *gasp*... gets closed as 'keep' after the full 7. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 03:13, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop swearing at other users you disagree with, and please stop the WP:BLUDGEON of everyone who disagrees with you. Nfitz (talk) 05:45, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:29, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. [[User:CAPTAIN RAJU|CAPTAIN RAJU] ]^(T) 22:40, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:03, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the nomination is fatally flawed given the season proper starts in a few days, and there is coverage already. Giant Snowman 11:05, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GiantSnowman, ummmm isn’t that the whole point of WP:TOOSOON? — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 21:50, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Insertcleverphrasehere: No. WP:CRYSTAL specifically says, "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." The topic will clearly be notable once the season starts and given the fact we're a just over a week out from the start of the season, with a sourced schedule, the event is almost certain to take place. We still need prose, but that will hopefully come and isn't a reason for deletion. I hope you will consider withdrawing this, as your best case scenario is enough other users agree this is WP:TOOSOON and you get this redirected for at most less than a week on a technicality. SportingFlyer T·C 04:46, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't understand this nomination. Their first pre-season match is literally next week. Nfitz (talk) 07:05, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 07:22, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Allison

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject of article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources hence does not qualify per WP:GNG. Celestina007 (talk) 14:30, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:30, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:30, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:30, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 14:30, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Passes GNG. He is featured prominently in articles from mainstream media about his drama with comedian Michael Che. He's also has been covered in other publications about his work. He was also nominated for an Oscar for his work on the 89th Annual Academy Awards[3]. Sources:

"Michael Che Is Trending for His Own Insecurities" from The Mary Sue (in article)
"The death of Hollywood’s middle class" from Fast Company
"It seems SNL's Michael Che doesn't respond too well to criticism" from National Post
"UCB Makes Cutbacks To LA Theaters Amid Financial Struggles" from Southern California Public Radio's LAist (in article)
"Read this: Why is SNL's Michael Che so obsessed with his critics?" from AV Club
"2 L.A. comedians made a shockingly good, low-budget Twitch morning show" from Daily Dot
"Meet Shampoodler, the podcast and Twitch superfan who’s the future of fandom in interactive media" from Fast Company

Missvain (talk) 22:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:16, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:ANYBIO nominated for an Oscar. Wm335td (talk) 21:20, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 00:44, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nas Daily

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Much more elaborate than the article deleted at the earlier AfD; but the elaboration is not increase of encyclopedic content, but increase in self-indulgent promotionalism . Regardless of any possible borderline notability , this is too promotional to fix. DGG ( talk ) 11:27, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:32, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:32, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:34, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:50, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:50, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:50, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Clean out the cruft and you've got a notable person who passes GNG. Check out the sources in the article: significant coverage in Business Insider, Times of Israel, Reuters, Global News, South China Morning Post, Times of Malta, and CNBC. He also has been featured in Harvard Business Review[4] and on the Today Show [5]. Missvain (talk) 22:22, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NOTCLEANUP the subject has a very large following for his VLOG on Youtube and especially on Facebook. He has received RS coverage. Passes WP:GNG. He has 14.8 million facebook followers. Lightburst (talk) 17:50, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I listed it for deletion because Ican se no way of removing thepromotionalism without removing the entire article. In the presence of promotionalism , notability is a seconday consideration. NOT ADVOCACY is one of our core policies, and without it we wouldn't be an encyclopedia. If someone is notable , then it should be possible for someone to write a non`-p article on the subject. Either someone who wants this kept should take responsibility for editing it, or it should be deleted and someone without COI can start over, per the excellent advice in the essay WP:TNT. . DGG ( talk ) 07:07, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree with the other "Keep" voters regarding the subject's notability, but I understand the nominator's concerns. I will try to clean up the article a bit to make it more objective, without losing any of the sources. Dflaw4 (talk) 06:21, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have edited the article to give it a more objective tone. I have also deleted some frivolous text, but no sources have been deleted. Hopefully the article reads more satisfactorily now. Dflaw4 (talk) 14:40, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Are the promo concerns addressed after the editing?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:14, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: With respect, the consensus was clear—a unanimous "Keep" verdict—so I don't think a relisting was needed. The article is still far from perfect, true, and I would encourage others to work on it too, but there was no deviation from the opinion that the notability standards were met. Dflaw4 (talk) 00:29, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. Deletion is usually reserved for articles which have no merit besides advertising, and while this is certainly biased, it can clearly be repaired and rewritten. I am going to begin improving it and I can see that it has already been tagged. Edit: Props should be given to Dflaw4 for the work they've done on the page. IphisOfCrete (talk) 00:50, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thank you, IphisOfCrete, very nice of you to say. I see that you have also worked on the page, and hope that it can be further improved. Dflaw4 (talk) 04:16, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable and referenced. No reason to delete.--Geewhiz (talk) 08:04, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: this person is clearly notable from the sheer volume of press coverage in a range of reputable outlets and geographies. Frankly, the proposer is wasting everybody's time and if they feel that some of the text is overly promotional they could have trimmed the article. To launch an AfD without even posting a Talk page comment is bad practice. I can't help but wonder if the proposer has an agenda against the article subject or his politics as there is no technical reason for the proposal. Mountain^cirque 09:45, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. People disagree about whether academic chairs that are generating presumed notability per WP:PROF are themselves automatically notable. This question is also at the center of at least two other still open AfDs. I recommend a centralized discussion of some sort about this question. Sandstein 08:57, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Churchill Professor of Mathematics for Operational Research

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability is not WP:INHERITED from its holders being bluelinks, sources are from within the department and university. Reywas92^Talk 04:07, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 04:07, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I searched, but the only coverage I could find was of people taking or leaving the chair, not in-depth and something that could easily be handled by a succession box within the individual articles. I couldn't find anything in-depth about the history of the chair or the story behind its creation. I don't think this passes WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:21, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:22, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:LISTN, as two or more people with enwiki articles have held this chair. ミラ P 21:27, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hogwash, there is no free reign for automatic notability of separate articles for any concept for which you have two bluelinks. No part of LISTN states this utter fabrication. Which "independent reliable sources" "discuss [it] as a group or set"??? Reywas92^Talk 22:38, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessary, WP:LISTN says, emphasis mine, that this is just [o]ne accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable, and that those that fulfill recognized [...] navigation [...] purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. And please take it to only one AFD at a time. ミラ P 23:04, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Two or more" bluelinks is not a navigational purpose superseding any expectation for independent sources covering the topic. You are twisting these words, which link to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lists#Purposes_of_lists and clearly reduces the need for sources for pages like outlines and lists of lists, not for bestowing an article on any concept that people can theoretically use to move from one article to another. Forget the GNG and all the rest, right? It has two links, call it a list, and it's good – AFD or even ATD be excepted! We've got List of University of Cambridge people if you want navigation, or list professors at Faculty of Mathematics, University of Cambridge if you want navigation, not unlimited independent-significant-coverage-free pages. Reywas92^Talk 23:37, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. it can be expected that the article will be expanded, since every person holding the chair is notable by WP:PROF. It's furthermore a distinguishing characterists. And a list of something distinguishing about multiple people all of whom will be notable justifies a list . DGG ( talk ) 06:50, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 21:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per David Eppstein: there appears to be zero independent coverage of this. Also the argument about NLIST seems completely wrong to me: the people who get this chair will be notable, but unless there is discussion of them as a group or collection then the notability is not inherited by the chair from its holders. --JBL (talk) 14:44, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 00:46, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Passle

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A directory-like listing for an unremarkable private company. Significant RS coverage not found; sourcing is in passing, routine notices and / or WP:SPIP. Created by Special:Contributions/Lunchyet with no other contributions. Does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:00, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:00, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A WP:SPA article on a company described as a startup. Availability of integration for a company's toolset into other tools doesn't confer notability. Nor do the listed nominations and awards appear to be notable in themselves. Searches are finding the usual listings, as well as an interview with someone from the company [6] and quotes from research releases by the company, but these fall under the "trivial coverage" provisions at WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 16:57, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 21:09, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom fails WP:NCORP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:09, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources are not significant and there is not significant coverage. Expertwikiguy (talk) 17:03, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 00:48, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie P

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Singer who fails notability guidelines for singers and GNG. The provided sources do not establish notability and I could not find any articles with significant coverage from reliable sources. Citrivescence (talk) 00:57, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:07, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:07, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The problem in finding additional sources may be that the subject's name is ambiguous. For instance, "It is with great sadness that the family of Charles “Charlie” P. Linden". The standard search finds nothing that meets WP:GNG and no claim at meeting WP:MUSICBIO is possible. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:17, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 21:08, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - musicians are supposed to collaborate. Bearian (talk) 18:05, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Based on supplied sources should be deleted. Agreed with Missvain that name is too common to find more sources, but of the someone to the creator can supply more info, maybe it can be reconsidered. In addition, musicians without any Top 100 songs or any awards are usually considered non-notable. Expertwikiguy (talk) 17:06, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:57, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Morooka Masanori

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject fails the GNG as well as WP:NARTIST. Internet research didn't show ant significant coverage by reliable secondary sources. I've found 1 book by him (https://www.worldcat.org/title/penga-no-susume-sen-ga-orinasu-natsukashii-fukei/oclc/675898263/editions?referer=di&editionsView=true), but it's not enough to secure him an article. Less Unless (talk) 21:02, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 21:02, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:49, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I could not find anything out there to establish notability. It would be great if an editor who reads Japanese could have a look, though. Netherzone (talk) 20:32, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 21:08, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing found in a search.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:46, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted G5 by User:TonyBallioni as created by blocked User:Yasproject (non-admin closure). Raymie (t • c) 19:31, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Truck donation event to Iranian truck driver

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTNEWS. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:06, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:06, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment-There is not a single mention of self-immolation on the equivalent Iranian page. This seems like a mistake.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 21:48, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This page is no longer live. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Expertwikiguy (talk • contribs) 17:08, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Mashin Sentai Kiramager. qedk (t 桜 c) 06:42, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rui Kihara

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

One lead role in a movie does not satisfy WP:NACTOR & no evidence of satisfying WP:SINGER can be observed. No in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. Perharps a case of WP:TOOSOON. Celestina007 (talk) 21:01, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:01, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:01, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:01, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:01, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:01, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mashin Sentai Kiramager. Japanese Wikipedia has no article on him, just a redirect. ミラ P 04:26, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete/Redirect: I think it's WP:TOOSOON, as per the nominator, and if the consensus is not to "Keep" the article, I think redirecting to Mashin Sentai Kiramager would be acceptable. Dflaw4 (talk) 05:07, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Leon Lai. Sandstein 09:04, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paciwood Music & Entertainment Ltd

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unremarkable organization Dawnseeker2000 00:50, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Dawnseeker2000 00:50, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:36, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:36, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Using Chinese name of the company , 百仕活娛樂 (formerly 百事活娛樂), also seem without any in-depth coverage in WP:RS. May be merge with the owner Leon Lai's article? Matthew hk (talk) 07:51, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:56, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Merge to Leon Lai No evidence in article or searches of compliance with GNG or any applicable SNG. I don't see where Leon Lai is the owner of Paciwood. If this is true, then merging would be appropriate ~~but Lai is a client and nothing more according to the sources currently present in their respective articles.~~ per Matthew hk's evidence. There already is a section for Lai's business ventures so this would fit easily there. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:49, 28 January 2020 (UTC)updated Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:10, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:57, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Eggishorn: Yes even using Chinese names to search, Google return lots of content farm url , but i trust this news reporting by Ming Pao and re-published by NOW TV (part of the conglomerate PCCW), which states "黎明（Leon）自成立「百仕活」經理人及製作公司之後，一直邀請陳善之擔任經理人". = Leon Lai founded [sic] Paciwood . Matthew hk (talk) 11:15, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed my !vote based on this evidence. Thank you for bringing it here. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:10, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. People disagree about whether there are sufficient sources for an article, and that's not up to me to decide. Sandstein 09:06, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Farrell Till

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fixing malformed AFD nomination. This is the 2nd AFD, I'm pasting the nominator's concern here: Geschichte (talk) 18:35, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Lacks depth of coverage by reliable sources. The Skeptical Review is a defunct website and the prior print publication went defunct before the website was published. The article also says he was a prominent debater yet for the most part it only mentions his debate with Norman Geisler (It also mentions a debate with Kent Hovind, but Hovind is not widely respected even among his fellow young earth creationists. Hovind even went separate ways from his son Eric Hovind who runs another young earth creationist ministry. And the separation was not very amicable)." Knox490 (talk) 16:39, 14 January 2020 (UTC)"[reply]

Note: The article creator was not notified but should have been, I just issued it now. —Paleo Neonate – 12:38, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet general notability guidelines. Majority of sourcing are mere mentions or primary sources and most are from non-mainstream news sources. Missvain (talk) 00:09, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Having done a quick search, I think there may be enough for notability, just. For what it's worth, Till has also debated Douglas Wilson and Kent Hovind, not just Norman Geisler. JohnnyBflat (talk) 02:07, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I see some sort of reputable-looking religious news news blog here that mentions him in depth, as well as multiple reliable mentions in books via GBooks. it's enough to say he existed and has been discussed in published sources enough to determine his background beliefs and activities.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:45, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:JOURNALIST. Authordom (talk) 03:31, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:05, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 17:05, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kommentar: I'm still looking for proper independent coverage but this turns out difficult. However, I find many Christian apologetic books and sites mentioning him, as well as a number of skeptic ones. If these are all considered "in universe", possibly that they don't count. In that universe, the person however appears very notable, including having accepted debates with popular apologetics (some very popular because of controversies). I'm ambivalent so am not !voting yet. —Paleo Neonate - 11:46, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Adding: he's listed here under "Prominent Atheist/Agnostic vs.Theist Debates". This is still "in universe", but maybe an indication of importance there. —Paleo Neonate – 11:53, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioned here at Talkorigins that is also generally considered good for WP when the topic touches evolution (example RSN thread). —Paleo Neonate – 11:58, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - The above for me is a weak keep - very notable in his field, but still weak for lack of independent coverage. —Paleo Neonate – 12:02, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kommentar Decent sized write up in Babinski, Edward T. (30 June 2003). Leaving The Fold: Testimonies Of Former Fundamentalists. Prometheus. pp. 293–. ISBN 978-1-61592-167-6.. MrBill3 (talk) 08:17, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets the meaning of the GNG, significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, as demonstrated by cites in article and listed above. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:00, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. I don't see enough significant coverage independent from the subject. Aman Kumar Goel^(Talk) 14:45, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CatcherStorm ^talk 04:37, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:57, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Literally nothing notable. He debated some other guys. So what? Bearian (talk) 18:07, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. qedk (t 桜 c) 06:43, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Atom Mizuishi

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NACTOR a movie actor should have significant roles in multiple movies, the article claims he has had lead roles in two which doesn’t exactly qualify as “multiple” furthermore subject lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. Celestina007 (talk) 20:56, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:56, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:56, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:56, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:56, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not only two, but he was also a major cast member of Musical:_The_Prince_of_Tennis#Rikkai. BEFORE also gave me so much. ミラ P 15:33, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As per ミラ. The body of the article definitely needs work, though. Dflaw4 (talk) 05:03, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:19, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

James M. Ash

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG, can't find any RS references or evidence of notability. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 20:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 20:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable lawyer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:07, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - expertise is claimed without any evidence. Fails my standards for lawyers. Bearian (talk) 18:09, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and being a member of the BIFAD is not an notability-granting post. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:45, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 21:55, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Ohio Soccer League

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An amateur soccer league with no independent coverage. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:26, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:26, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:26, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are teams in the league with no separate notability:

Delete no notability shown. SportingFlyer T·C 12:54, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:02, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 11:05, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The majority of opinions either say we can write an encyclopedia-quality article about Yun Chol, or that the nominator seems to be challenging existing policy, which is the wrong venue. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:50, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yun Chol (weightlifter)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A losing competitor at one olympic games. Sole source is a results page. This clearly violates WP:NOTDIR, and also WP:BLP1E. Guy (help!) 20:13, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Competed at the Olympics, so meets WP:NOLY. A WP:POINTy nom following this discussion at ANI. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 20:17, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lugnuts, See WP:NOTDIR. The criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia are coverage in reliable independent sources not membership of a category. Guy (help!) 23:19, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The individual also won a silver medal at the Asian Games, so your claim of WP:BLP1E is erroneous. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:35, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:21, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:21, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Given the time period (pre-internet) and country of question, I think it likely that there are offline sources available that demonstrate GNG that we simply don't have access to due to geopolitical issues. Then again, would we consider any North Korean sources to be reliable? — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 21:15, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At minimum I'd want an understanding of the Korean language sources are (or aren't) in this case as it's possible there are good sources from South Korea. As I don't know enough to know what his name is in Korean I can't even begin to search such sources. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:01, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The only news source in North Korea, period, is KCNA, which has reliability in some cases that is highly dubious. In other cases, there is simply not enough information to know whether its coverage is accurate. That being said, what it does report on sports is generally reliable, although it rarely reports on failures by the North Koreans. This means that while the information in the sports articles is generally accurate, key information may have been left out. That being said, given we'd consider reporting on an athlete in national media to establish GNG in any other case, and the rather unusual circumstances here, I'd consider it sufficient. Otherwise it would create different notability standards for North Korean athletes than those from every other country, which probably violates WP:NPOV, WP:BIAS, and a whole bunch of other policies and guidelines. Smartyllama (talk) 19:51, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice to recreation if significant coverage can be found. As the article stands, the sources are only database or list entries without significant coverage. There may be more coverage out there (either offline or online but in non-English media), which is why we have these SNGs in the first place. That said, since the subject is a) from North Korea and b) lost the event, I consider it reasonable to assume that finding those sources will be impractically difficult. creffett (talk) 00:05, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Keep This is the very reason why we have SNGs. This isn't a great article, but we can't actually determine his notability without access to Korean-language sources. I know other users take this to mean "we have to keep the crap," but that's not my point at all - there's simply nobody here who can definitively say if this person is notable or not, and as a content creator that means we need to err on the side of keep as he does pass WP:V. If someone does a before search in Korean and nothing comes up, and unfortunately a web search may not suffice, will be happy to change my !vote to a delete. SportingFlyer T·C 06:29, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, don't be ridiculous. —Xezbeth (talk) 06:38, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ridiculously POINT-y nomination, easily passes WP:OLY. Totally inappropriate and should have been speedily closed. Smartyllama (talk) 19:22, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Löschen Subject specific guidelines should not trump common sense. Not everyone who has ever entered into the olympics is notable by any real logical standard. This subject notability guidelines is absurd and needs to be scrapped in favor of something that better reflects what articles will actually come to have sources enough to justify their existence.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:29, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, what's absurd is !voting delete on every sports AfD regardless of merit, as you have. I encourage the closing admin to keep that in mind when determining how much weight to give your !vote. Smartyllama (talk) 21:20, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please, let's focus on the article topic and whether it's notable or not, and avoid accusing others of !voting delete too much, etc. Thank you. Levivich 21:23, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Löschen – per JPL, and per the-philosophical-opposite-of-SF's-position. I agree that there's simply nobody here who can definitively say if this person is notable or not but I disagree that as a content creator that means we need to err on the side of keep as he does pass WP:V. We should err on the side of exclusion because he does not pass V, unless you count sourced-to-a-statistical-table as passing V. I don't, because in order for something to be verified, it needs to be verified by multiple independent secondary sources. If we only verify something to a primary source, we're relying on WP:OR. For example, it's original research to say "all Olympians are notable". I'd say {{cn}} for that statement. And non-independent sources are not reliable sources for notability determinations. This article subject isn't notable until and unless multiple secondary independent sources say he is. No sources, no article. Levivich 21:23, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, you're refusing to do WP:BEFORE and then saying it should be deleted because you can't be bothered to do so? Also, Sports-Reference has been determined multiple times to be reliable and satisfy WP:V, so setting aside the GNG/SNG issues, it obviously satisfies at least V. So that's complete garbage what you're saying and your repeated and absurd arguments against Sports Reference for some unknown reason make me seriously question whether you're here to build an encyclopedia. Smartyllama (talk) 21:46, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for all the reasons mentioned above for keeping. Jeff in CA (talk) 21:36, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This could be a procedural keep as a WP:POINTy nom that would be better handled as a general discussion of notability guidelines (as he clearly meets the SNG) but as an athlete about which we have multiple sources about multiple noteworthy performances this isn't even a good test case; he clearly meets the SNG and appears to meet the GNG, even despite the difficulty of accessing North Korean sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:42, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(actual question, not trying to be hostile here) David Eppstein, what do you see as multiple sources about multiple noteworthy performances? I see two sources on the article, but my understanding is that the NSPORT rule is that presence in a sports stat database (which is what's in the article right now) isn't sufficient to establish notability. If you know of other sources that will bring the article to meeting GNG, I'm willing to change my !vote. creffett (talk) 23:29, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you trying to argue that Chol does not pass WP:NSPORT? Because in that case WP:NOLY does not say anything about which sources are usable. On the other hand, if you're trying to argue based on WP:GNG oder WP:BIO1E, ignoring sport, then we have two significant accomplishments each of which is reliably sourced, and one of which has a nontrivial amount of detail about Chol (half a dozen intermediate scores as well as final result). Additionally, I strongly suspect that there are many early-1990s North Korean print sources about Chol. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:11, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  I'm arguing that I don't think Yun (I think Yun is his surname, at least) is notable because he doesn't meet GNG. Here's my logic (apologies, wall of text incoming):
  - Throughout NSPORT, the term "presumed notable" comes up. I'm treating that as a rebuttable presumption.
    This interpretation is backed by answer 1 from the NSPORT FAQ: The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline. They are intended only to stop an article from being quickly deleted when there is very strong reason to believe that significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from reliable sources are available, given sufficient time to locate them. Wikipedia's standard for including an article about a given person is not based on whether or not he/she has attained certain achievements, but on whether or not the person has received appropriate coverage in reliable sources, in accordance with the general notability guideline. Also refer to Wikipedia's basic guidance on the notability of people for additional information on evaluating notability. (emphasis mine)
  - From that, NOLY means "someone who competed in the Olympics is likely to have significant coverage. Okay so far.
  - A reasonably thorough search has not found any additional sources. The existing sources do not meet WP:SPORTBASIC: Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may be used to support content in an article, but it is not sufficient to establish notability. This includes listings in database sources with low, wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion, such as Sports Reference's college football and basketball databases.. Reference 1 is, in fact, Sports Reference, and is exactly what this part of the guideline is talking about - a list of statistics without any deeper coverage. Reference 2 similarly is a list of medal awards without deeper coverage. Neither of those meets GNG.
  - I agree that there are probably North Korean sources out there, but we haven't found them, and might never find them.
    The deeper question here is "how much effort is an AfD nominator expected to put into a BEFORE search?"
  - If someone can find those North Korean sources, I have no problem keeping the article. However, the article does not currently show it meets GNG, and I'm on the deletionist side here - if we can't find those sources with a reasonable amount of effort, then the article should be deleted. I don't think an article should be kept because there might be sources somewhere we can't get to.
  creffett (talk) 00:58, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I disagree that searches performed so far have been "reasonably thorough", because there is no evidence that we have searched even the Korean-language sources from South Korea let alone any print-only North Korean sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:48, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If a "reasonably thorough" search included print-only North Korean sources, what else would one search in an "exhaustive" search? I can't wrap my mind around keeping this stub because there might be some print-only North Korean sources out there. Levivich 03:57, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Competed at the Olympics, so meets WP:NOLY Lightburst (talk) 22:44, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and castigate nominator per above. ―cobaltcigs 00:35, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clear case of WP:NOLY, having competed in the Olympics. Possibly a case of not completing WP:BEFORE Taewangkorea (talk) 04:09, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Competed at the Olympics, so passes the subject specific guideline for this. See WP:NOLY which some are trying to change now just to eliminate articles for a lot of Olympic contestants. Dream Focus 18:57, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Löschen Screw NOLY. This is spam. Your quantity is not quality. Statistical database entries is not notability. Get some WP:SIGCOV or this is just WP:BLP1E. Reywas92^Talk 21:04, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
1E? He competed at the Olympics and won a medal at the Asian Games. That's two events. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 23:13, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NOLY. You have to get consensus for changing NOLY before asking for deletion. --T*U (talk) 21:18, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:NOLY. The Olympic Games are the pinnacle event in most sports that are held there, including weightlifting; thus, the competitors belong to the world's best athletes in their field. —MisterSynergy (talk) 00:33, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Weightlifting at the 1992 Summer Olympics – Men's 90 kg. The deletion rationale is actually reasonable. I hate all of these "Keep per NOLY" arguments. It is a terrible precedent that has been set at AfD. If it can't meet the GNG it shouldn't be an article; this applies to all sportsperson articles. NOLY and other things at the sports SNG don't create notability. I believe that sources probably exist, but are not searchable in English on the internet. How good they are is another thing entirely. While geopolitical issues interfere with being able to do a WP:BEFORE search properly, I don't believe that we should have BLP articles for subjects that can't be sourced reliably. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 00:48, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What source in the article do you think is unreliable? It's one thing to suggest that it's not enough to establish notability, but to suggest that Sports Reference is unreliable is ridiculous and you know it. Smartyllama (talk) 02:13, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Entries in reference dictionaries typically aren't enough to demonstrate notability, even if they are technically reliable. They're good for WP:V, not so much for WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 04:20, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Smartyllama, What SportingFlyer said. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 04:34, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why not just relax, leave things as they are and rest assured that nearly all stubs will eventually be improved in the grand scheme of things? Enjoy life instead of wringing hands about stubs. Stubs are not a big deal. Focus on instances of non-notability in which there is near unanimity. It seems a colossal waste of time to debate this incessantly. Jeff in CA (talk) 06:50, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jeff in CA, Um... no. No new sources are going to show up for this guy. If they aren't available now, they likely won't ever be, and unless they do, we can't expand this stub as there is literally nothing more to say. If sources do become available on the other hand, then we can actually write a decent biography about the subject and it can be created easily. Until that time, we can't, and this permastub is useless. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 22:05, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just don’t worry about it.Jeff in CA (talk) 20:52, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why not redirect to Weightlifting at the 1990 Asian Games? He won a medal there. -- Jonel (Speak to me) 23:13, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Because people keep insisting WP:BLP1E even though that's been repeatedly disproven. Smartyllama (talk) 23:17, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Athlete clearly competed at a notable level of the sport as a silver medallist at the Asian Games and Olympic finalist. Almost certainly a multiple national champion too given he was selected for those competitions. SFB 01:11, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have access to various subscription databases. These contain references that might not be generally available that indicate notability. For example, BBC Monitoring reported "Pyongyang, October 11: The title of DPRK (North Korea) Labour Hero with gold medal (hammer and sickle) and the Order of the National Flag First Class were awarded to gold medalists at the 30th Olympics. They were [among others] weightlifter Om Yun Chol of the Amnokgang Sports Team..." The inference is that he is sufficiently notable at least within North Korea. QuiteUnusual (talk) 13:12, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's a great find, but Om Yun-chol is a different person (and gold medalist). SportingFlyer T·C 13:21, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doh. Thanks. Striking my !vote accordingly. QuiteUnusual (talk) 17:13, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as argued above. If there's a sensible redirect target and we don't have sources to write an article beyond a sub-stub/statistics, it should be redirected regardless of notability. That said, if NOLY doesn't correspond to having those sources the vast majority of the time, it should be changed. The hardest thing here is the issue of systemic bias. Since this AfD seems intended to be (or, at least, destined to be) something of a case study in NOLY, I do wish we had started with an Olympian from a primarily English-speaking country. At the end of the day, though, regardless of whether we decide that someone is technically notable under this or that guideline, we need to have sources (whether in the article or not -- but more than their probability of existence) in order to have an article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:47, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable Olympic athlete. -DJSasso (talk) 18:14, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In the highly unlikely event this is not kept, I would strongly oppose a redirect as there are multiple notable events he competed in, like others have noted and some insist on denying. Smartyllama (talk) 18:56, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Löschen. This article is crappy enough to even ignore the Korean name of this person. When searching YUN Chol (PRK) as 윤철, this only leads to 엄윤철(1991), i.e. to someone else. Moreover being only #12 at Barcelona 1992 is not "multiple notable events", this is ONLY ONE not so notable event. By the way, [7]. Pldx1 (talk) 11:25, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So you're denying the Asian Games exist? Smartyllama (talk) 13:11, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, it isn't hard to find other sources for the results if we have to - see [8]. But the fact that a source is (or will be) dead is irrelevant to notability. Smartyllama (talk) 13:13, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In addition to the Olympics and Asian Games, he competed at the 1990 World Weightlifting Championships (see [9]) so we now have three major events he competed in, and one he medaled in. I don't know how people can seriously argue 1E applies. Smartyllama (talk) 13:40, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for finding that. It reiterates the pointy nomination, the lack of effort in searching by the nom, which they've been strangely quiet on. Maybe a bit of WP:CIR too, but I'd have to look at any other AfD contributions before making that call. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:40, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, for heaven's sakes. Per plenty of previous arguments, including that he meets the Olympic competitor standard. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 19:36, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets notability standards both as an Olympic finalist and as a medalist in the Asian Games. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:32, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Procedural keep. It appears the nominator wants to challenge WP:NOLY. The correct avenue for that is WP:RfC; AfD is the wrong way to change the long-standing convention that Olympic participation results in inherent notability. Schwede 66 21:39, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Where do you get that from? "Inherent notability"?? Levivich 22:48, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or redirect or merge as appropriate. The guideline WP:NOLY, like other topic-specific notability guidelines, only creates a rebuttable presumption of notability. This presumption can be rebutted if, as here, a thorough discussion does not find any indication of coverage that goes beyond statistical information about match participation. Such information does not amount to a biography in any meaningful sense (see also WP:NOTSTATS). It should therefore be covered in an appropriate list rather than in a separate article. Sandstein 09:12, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is a higher bar for rebutting this presumption than simply basing it on a discussion.Jeff in CA (talk) 10:37, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. qedk (t 桜 c) 06:44, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FlexPay

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:CORPDEPTH. References are to press releases, FlexPay's own website, or a pay-for-award site. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:12, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:12, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:12, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: First, the awards-site link isn't a pay-for-award company - Great Place to Work is an institute that partners with Fortune to make their 100 Best Companies to Work For annual list. But more importantly, after some cleanup only 1 link goes to FlexPay's site, and none are to a press release. I've now included articles from Betakit, Railsbank, Forbes & PYMNTS. I'm not usually an article creator here, I usually just optimize images, so you'll have to excuse my poor first version of FlexPay. With the references I've now added, I believe that WP:CORPDEPTH should be satisfied.ʤɛfiːpiː (talk) 22:23, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH; sourcing is passing and / or WP:SPIP. The award is not significant. Notability is not inherited from the other companies that the company's product integrates with. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:25, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree, particularly with K.e.coffman. There is simply no SIGCOV about the company itself, and it is otherwise non-notable. PK650 (talk) 22:38, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Löschen [[10]] is not significant coverage
[[11]] was written by a forbes "contributor" and dedicates one sentence to FlexPay: "Payment gateway FlexPay uses AI to predict and prevent credit card declines."
[[12]] has a prominent button that says "learn how to get on this list". These lists are a fraud. I used to work at a place that appeared on such lists constantly. Getting listed required some effort by the HR and PR folks and employees had to be "encouraged" to vote, but whoever wants to be on such a list can be on it. Provided you pay, of course. See [13]
[[14]] looks like a usable source.
[[15]] Per their about page, "PYMNTS.com is reinventing the way in which companies share relevant information about the initiatives that shape the future of payments and commerce and make news." Also: "Business Wire, the global market leader in commercial news and disclosure distribution, is the exclusive press release service for PYMNTS.com"
[[16]] is not a news outlet, but a FinTech company.
[[17]] is not a news outlet, but a hosting company
[[18]] is the subject itself
[[19]] is not a news outlet, but a software company.
[[20]] is not a news outlet, but a software company.
[[21]] is a press release
[[22]] is a press release.
In summary, there is one source that seems to be independent, reliable and somewhat in-depth. That is not sufficient. Vexations (talk) 13:04, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Thanks for the detailed analysis Vexations - I'll remember it for future work! ʤɛfiːpiː (talk) 18:10, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Poor sources provided as per Vexations. Expertwikiguy (talk) 17:21, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 21:55, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mansur Soltayev

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about footballer who made a single appearance in a Russian Cup (football) match, and otherwise has only played in amateur or semi-pro football leagues. There is no significant coverage of this footballer in online English- or Russian-language sources (just database entries, match reports and transfer announcements, e.g., [23]). There is long-standing consensus that a nominal amount of play in a fully-pro league doesn't justify the presumption of notability in WP:NFOOTBALL when there is a comprehensive WP:GNG failure - as there is here.Jogurney (talk) 19:56, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:05, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:05, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:05, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:17, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one game appearance does not make someone notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:09, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG, more important than scraping by on WP:NFOOTBALL through one Cup appearance. Giant Snowman 10:58, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. qedk (t 桜 c) 06:46, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Education Side of Minecraft

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Already mentioned in Minecraft, so unnecessary split; written like an advertisement, page title is completely wrong, and what the hell is the section "The Propaganda"??? Nixinova T C 19:48, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:05, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as the name is so odd I'm having a hard time rationalizing a redirect. Completely unecessary split from Minecraft at this point, and arbitrary. JamieWhat (talk) 20:39, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:GNG and unneeded split. The Education edition is already mentioned in main article and so is the game's use in education. There is nothing to merge as none of the non-primary sources here support any content other than Education version's release. No prejudice to eventually splitting off an article about the game's impact on education, but that would have to have way more properly-sourced content. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 21:02, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unnecessary spin-off from Minecraft, no relevant and substantial information that would merit its own article. Maybe it's WP:TOOSOON at this point and we can have a properly sourced (and correctly named) article solely on the educational uses of Minecraft at some point, but right now it's just retelling the Minecraft#Applications section in a somewhat strange way. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:35, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notability is not transferable, and the sources listed in article cannot justify the passing of WP:GNG. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 23:22, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Minecraft#Applications. I have moved this to a more plausible redirect title, but the current content is hardly salvageable (so don't merge anything), and the sourcing is not enough to sustain an own article regardless of writing quality. Glades12 (talk) 08:01, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Already mentioned in the main article and no need for an article split as none of the WP:WHENSPLIT criteria are reasonably met. A redirect wouldn’t be right, since the title is an unlikely search term. — MarkH₂₁^talk 06:32, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnecesary spin-off article from Minecraft which is not notable enough for a split. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 21:28, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:30, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Richard L. Lackey

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails notability, lack of RS. Could redirect to Board for International Food and Agricultural Development (BIFAD), which is notable, but don't see evidence of Lackey's notability independent of that. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 19:39, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 19:39, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 19:39, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:12, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He has an important role, several in fact, but no coverage to show that he himself is notable. I did find some book coverage and a few announcements, but nothing near to what GNG would require, in my opinion. JamieWhat (talk) 20:51, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being chair of the board of an organization is not an automatic notability freebie, but the references here are not reliable source coverage in media for the purposes of getting him over WP:GNG — it's referenced entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability at all, which is not how you get a person over the inclusion bar. Bearcat (talk) 18:30, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NPOL and WP:NOTINHERITED. Being a president/chair of an advisory board does not make a person automatically notable. Bearian (talk) 18:11, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No coverage at all about him. The article makes several claims which are unsubstantiated. The "World Food Bank" is a non-notable private investment fund. Nothing to do with the World Food Programme! So even if the fund were notable, he isn't. And they both aren't. Clearly trying to fool Wikipedia, and for that I have no sympathy. PK650 (talk) 04:24, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we do not have enough for a biography. Sounds like the subject is doing notable work, however WP:V. Wm335td (talk) 21:54, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:42, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Limavady Baptist Church

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability, all sources are non-independent. Not a historic building, just listing non-notable founding members of a small, generic house of worship. Reywas92^Talk 19:35, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 19:35, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 19:35, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, failed to find the sort of coverage that would show GNG. Might be worth mentioning on the page of the hometown, but then again, maybe not. JamieWhat (talk) 21:13, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(With regret) Delete -- The list of founders is wholly NN. When that is removed we are left with a sentence saying that it exists and when it was founded. This is not enough for a worthwhile article. Possibly merge to Limavady. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:23, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:55, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. After two relists by @Missvain and Northamerica1000: there is consensus here that BMO Nesbitt Burns has met our general notability guideline and our additional notability requirement of WP:CORPDEPTH. As written, the references provided in the article do not pass WP:CORPDEPTH; however, given the age of the company and in consideration of the offline sources available, it is highly unlikely this company would fail WP:CORPDEPTH. Having said all of this, there is some emerging consensus here to merge-ing with Bank of Montreal, particularly as the article was (a) substantially edited by a (likely) COI-conflicted editor in BMOnesbittburns and (b) it's had nearly two decades to shed its stub-class status (or de facto stub-class status), with Mindmatrix even noting a merger is a possibility and it's a reasonable assumption that nom Skeletor3000, who favours deletion, would be amenable to a merge, which can occur at Talk:BMO Nesbitt Burns or at Talk:Bank of Montreal outside of this AfD. (non-admin closure) Doug Mehus T·C 00:55, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BMO Nesbitt Burns

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable client group of Bank of Montreal. The only coverage I found were mentions in bio articles about former employees and the typical legal action announcements. Skeletor3000 (talk) 22:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 22:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 22:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Skeletor3000 (talk) 22:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:51, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, and possibly merge any articles related to its predecessors into it (eg - Nesbitt, Thomson and Company). Those predecessors should have plenty of offline coverage. Another option is to redirect to BMO Financial Group and expanding the predecessor articles, which should also point to the appropriate subsection at BMO Financial Group (either in the text, or in the see also section). Mind matrix 15:23, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:14, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 19:13, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As noted above, there is good coverage of its predecessors, Burns Fry (see notes here,here and here about its CEO, Latham C. Burns) and Nesbitt Thomson (see entry here). Jogurney (talk) 20:20, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as I've added an number of sources that go into lawsuits, settlements, and other non-routine corporate developments related to legislative changes, etc., enough to pass CORPDEPTH by most standards I would say. If not keep for some reason, then merge and keep the useful info. JamieWhat (talk) 17:24, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Closing per User:Missvain's comment on relist. (non-admin closure) N0nsensical.system^(err0r?)_(.log) 09:16, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suresh Krishnan

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable movie director who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources hence falls short of WP:GNG. Celestina007 (talk) 01:18, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:18, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:18, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:18, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:18, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Has a marginal notability, considering he has directed five films and was an associate director in over 25 Bollywood films. 137.97.154.111 (talk) 16:42, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 05:34, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:16, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One. More. Round and then I'll close as no consensus if we can't get more feedback. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 19:13, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:29, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable director as per WP:DIRECTOR. GargAvinash (talk) 04:51, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:59, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LDShadowLady

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Number of viewers & rankings might qualify her but almost all the sources here are not valid. Not finding other acceptable relevant sources to demonstrate WP:GNG. Plenty of WP:OR here. Without much more sourcing this doesn't appear valid. JamesG5 (talk) 06:09, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:14, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 12:33, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 12:33, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 12:33, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I was pretty skeptical myself to start here; I'm not one to think highly of YouTube streamers as being noteworthy subjects. But, a WP:BEFORE check on Google using the News filter seems to have turned up several sources which look to be potentially reliable. At least one or two call her the UK's top female gamer streamer, and there are a couple of articles specifically about her, with numerous mentions elsewhere. Some of the key ones I found:[24][25] This article needs work, but my search seems to indicate she might pass GNG. Red Phoenix ^talk 05:51, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:30, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Currently, the article is in need to a desperate rework if this article is kept as almost all sources are primary or unreliable. In regards to notability, I do not think the the subject is notable enough for a standalone article. The subject has garnered some coverage like the two dedicated articles by Evening Standard and Gazette Review ([26], [27]) as pointed out by Red Phoenix in addition to its mentions in listicles. However when applying WP:GNG how must consider the reliablity of the sources. The Evening Standard has no consensus of reliablity per WP:RSP and I am not convinced about the reliablity of Gazette Review. The reliablity aspect is especially important here as we are dealing with a WP:BLP. The other brief mentions in mostly unreliable sources (with the exception of The Guardian [28]) do not demonstrate notablity hence fails WP:GNG. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 17:52, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Guardian article counts is significant coverage in a reliable source. So does ABC news, opinion of a paid editor, [29] so that passes the requirements of the general notability guidelines. She gets coverage in Daily Mail [30] and elsewhere that aren't considered reliable sources anymore apparently, but doesn't matter, you only need two reliable sources found from searching through the many Google news search results to prove she is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. Dream Focus 17:11, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Dream Focus: Two brief mentions of the subject in opinion pieces in reliable sources (The Guardian and ABC News) do not constitute as significant coverage. To quote WP:GNG: "Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content." Here plainly this is the case. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 17:46, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The ABC one has them doing a long interview with her. IGN translated [31] shows she was in a Minecraft game Minecraft:_Story_Mode#A_Portal_to_Mystery_(Episode_6). She gets brief mention in Marie Claire [32] "The ultimate vlogger event is coming to London for the first time" calling her "the UK’s top female gamer on YouTube". Significant is what they say not how many words they say it in. Dream Focus 18:05, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Dream Focus: The interview from ABC from my understanding is an informal interview with an eight-year old talking about the generational gap in entertainment with a mention of the subject which does not add any notablity. But even if it was with the subject it would not add significant coverage since WP:GNG requires coverage to be in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The brief mentions in IGN and Marie Claire also do not fulfill as significant coverage as there is not in-depth. "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention. The label "the UK's top female gamer on YouTube" does not automatically make the subject notable enough to warrant a separate page. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 18:36, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Passes the subject specific guideline for Entertainers "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.". WP:ENTERTAINER has been met so the article can be kept. Dream Focus 19:29, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Dream Focus: Understandably the subject has 4.9 million subscribers which is a considerable fan base. However, that guideline means they are likely to be notable and meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. Currently, the subject has not passed WP:BASIC (WP:GNG) with no significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject hence it should be deleted. Perhaps, if there were more reliable coverage, even if more not fully in-depth, I would suggest "Keep" but currently this is certainly not the case so I still think it should be deleted due to the lack of notablity. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 21:23, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Notability clearly states A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right. It does not have to pass both, never has, never will. I don't know why some people have trouble understanding something written that clear. Dream Focus 23:17, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The infomation that informed my previous comment was from Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Additional criteria. In any case, on this occassion the complete lack of significant, reliable coverage demonstrates that the subject is not notable to have a separate page. The fact the subject has a unusually high number of subscribers does not convince me otherwise. This is especially true since the current article relies heavily on primary sources and database entries and on we need to be verifable more so on a WP:BLP. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 22:56, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A primary source would be the person talking about themselves. YouTube has a clear display showing how many subscribers someone has, and their system is designed so it can not be cheated these days. Brief mentions of the person in various reliable sources confirms they are a popular YouTuber. Dream Focus 19:57, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think we have reached an impasse becuase we fundamentally have diverging views as to what counts and contributes to notablity but it was nice discussing it with you and am glad you assumed good faith. Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 11:22, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 19:13, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Zero of the sources actually in the article are reliable secondary coverage. I agree with Spy-cicle about the sources not in the article. --JBL (talk) 22:10, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Coverage identified so far is in unreliable sources, a passing mention (The Guardian) or an opinion writer's interview with his eight-year-old daughter (ABC News), which is in no imaginable way an acceptable source for a WP:BLP. Sandstein 09:25, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: I think she is borderline for WP:GNG. The articles I found have already been mentioned and debated. The subject has a very large following of fans, though, so I'm inclined to give her the benefit of the doubt. Dflaw4 (talk) 09:31, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. qedk (t 桜 c) 06:48, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ASACO

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This company doesn't seem to be notable. It only had 1 plane and there isn't really any information about it online or any reliable sources out there that I could find to expand the article. Let alone the broad coverage in multiple reliable sources to make it notable. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:23, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:48, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:48, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:48, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 19:12, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:26, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Khondokar Abdullah Zahangir

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All sources are routine coverages. Fails WP:GNG, WP:AUTHOR and WP:ACADEMIC. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 07:08, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 07:08, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 07:08, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 07:08, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 07:08, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 07:08, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete Routine coverage, reference from the group's website that he established, reference of his own books, news regarding the road accident etc seems WP:REFBOMB.~ Nahid ^Talk 14:17, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Löschen per above and because it was created by a user who evidently was here to promote some sort of Hindu-Muslim syncretism fringe theory and is now indefinitely blocked and topic banned from religion; [33] his block was for a combination of disruptive editing, refusal to communicate, original research, edit warring, and, in the end, incompetence. -Crossroads- (talk) 17:13, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I didn;t know we discriminated in notability as an author about whether the author's views were mainstream. DGG ( talk ) 03:28, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, to make the implicit explicit: the article's dubious pedigree, combined with the difficult-to-evaluate sources, suggests that WP:TNT is warranted. -Crossroads- (talk) 05:57, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Got some coverage from regional sources only when he died following an accident. Fails WP:GNG. Aman Kumar Goel^(Talk) 15:47, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He is a biggest islamic scholar in modern bangladesh. there should be issue regarding reference but this man should be in wikipedia. this is not the matter, what he promoted in his life. I don't understand why that question is arrived. aakamal ( talk ) 12:18, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Aakamal: Please provide reliable sources for your claim and do understand that the AFD process is NOT Wikipedia:ILIKEIT. Also, I fixed your signature. Best, ~ Nahid ^Talk 23:28, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@NahidSultan: Thanks for your reply. As your request, I added so many reliable source in this article. I think That will be enough for it. ( Aakamal ) 09:50, 2 february 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, those are not enough. Now it looks like WP:REFBOMB and all of them fail WP:RELIABLE. Lets talk about them: 3) VOA Bangla: subject was quoted in a piece, 8) Muslim Media: an Islamic website fails RS, 40) Daily star: report is about road accidents across the country. 41) abnews24: fails RS, also reported the road crash, 42) Prothom Alo: road crash report, 44) daily Inqilab and Sangram: road crash report but with details, first one is generally reliable but biased towards Islamic viewpoints, later is the Mouthpiece of Jamaat-e-Islami. 46) Janakantha: reports on discussion meeting in remembrance of the subject where he worked by university correspondent, 47) newsnextbd: fails RS and rest of them are e-commerce sites. ~ Nahid ^Talk 18:37, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 19:12, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Almost all of refs are from book selling site. others are routine coverage. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 18:30, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@আফতাবুজ্জামান: First of all, there have so many referencs without book and news reference in this page. if you want to verify those, you can. secondly, death news can be reference. if you go there Xulhaz Mannan. 100% of reference are about death news. but no one is asking for deletation of this article. so, why for this page? ( Aakamal ) 03:14, 3 february 2020 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFF and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 20:57, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Fails WP:GNG. ~Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 07:52, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. qedk (t 桜 c) 06:48, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Stefanski

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NBASE as a non-notable minor league baseball player. While I did uncover an article about him being a catching co-ordinator for the Reds, I don't think there's enough here to demonstrate notability. SportingFlyer T·C 07:23, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 07:23, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 07:23, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 07:23, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:44, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see no evidence that shows either WP:NBASEBALL or WP:GNG is met. Papaursa (talk) 02:29, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 19:12, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It looks like he's a member of the coaching staff but isn't in uniform for games, similar to Alyssa Nakken and Mark Hallberg, who were just hired by the Giants, and a bunch of others this offseason. With the recent rapid growth of coaching staffs, perhaps the notability guidelines need tweaking. Regardless, this guy played parts of nine seasons in AAA, mostly before the internet era. It's unlikely he wasn't featured in at least a few stories. - Bbny-wiki-editor (talk) 23:18, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I was able to find some coverage on nwespapers.com. It is quite tedious to get through many game summaries and transactions (as well as picking through other people with the same name, but at least some sources are here, here and here. I would like a little more before voting keep on a GNG basis, and there very well may be (I didn't get through nearly all the articles with a hit on his name) but I will leave that for others. Rlendog (talk) 22:59, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. qedk (t 桜 c) 06:49, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aadamkhor (2018)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are no coverage of this film. Only source is given in this article is youtube link of this film. Even via google search I found nothing about its notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 07:30, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 07:30, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. S. M. Nazmus Shakib (talk) 07:30, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 19:12, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not passes WP:NFSOURCES. To presume notability, reliable sources should have significant coverage. GargAvinash (talk) 04:57, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:30, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Minds Eye Entertainment

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Semi-advertorialized article about a film production company, not properly referenced as passing our notability standards for companies. As always, the notability test is not simply the fact that their films are technically verifiable as existing -- the notability test is the reception of media coverage about the company, sufficient in range and depth and volume to clear WP:GNG and WP:CORPDEPTH. But apart from one non-notable and unreliable blog, the sources here are otherwise entirely to the films' IMDb profiles, with not even one shred of real reliable source coverage in real media shown at all. Wikipedia is not a free advertising platform: we depend on media coverage, not directory entries, as the determinant of whether a company is notable enough for a Wikipedia article or not. Bearcat (talk) 03:06, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:06, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:06, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. No opinion on the deletion discussion but I took out the promotional material, which was most of the article.Citing (talk) 20:32, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:26, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Plenty of passing mentions and press releases, not really any significant coverage from reliable sources out there. This article probably counts as significant coverage, but anything else that I could find was just a press release masquerading as an article or This article and mentions that are too short. Fails WP:GNG/WP:NCORP. — MarkH₂₁^talk 04:20, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 19:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTCATALOGUE because as written, that's all this is: an article that says this is the name of the film production company and these are a partial list of films this company has produced. We can get this from IMDb. Like MarkH21, I noted the same article that likely meets WP:SIGCOV, but we need at least one more article to meet WP:GNG (three to five would be better). So it's maybe notable, but even then, I'm not sure we get to WP:CORPDEPTH. I wouldn't be opposed to draftification (arguably, this article should've been draftified or PRODed to save us the AfD), but there's nothing here worth keeping. Most of the coverage I found was reliable source coverage about films they've made or are going to make, which I doubt qualify as they're not about the company, such as this one about a film called "Endless," shot in my hometown and principal residence of Kelowna. This one about The Recall, a Total Recall remake from 2016 starring Wesley Snipes, which was also shot in Kelowna, might get us closer to qualifying as it does discuss the company in a minimal way, whereas this one meets our criteria of it coming from a reliable source, but it's not about the company. Doug Mehus T·C 01:16, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. qedk (t 桜 c) 06:49, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of Pakistan Armed Forces

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article was started as "The Establishment" and can be restored as such. ~~Some of the old text has been deleted randomly and new content is in its old form.~~ DTM (talk) 10:27, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:The Establishment (Pakistan) - this needs to be shifted to the mainspace under the same name and not "Criticism of Pakistan Armed Forces" since there is a content mismatch. DTM (talk) 10:32, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity I should add, there is nearly a 100% content overlap between the article and the draft. A simple line to line scan clears this out, other than the DupDetector. Even if the scope of Criticism of Pakistan Armed Forces can exist separately, currently it has ZERO content and should be deleted, merged, redirected until someone adds content and gets rid of the overlap between the two articles. DTM (talk) 10:51, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:42, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:42, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but improve. Störm (talk) 19:45, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 19:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete this being an ATTACK page. 39.50.217.44 (talk) 10:26, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Involved in socking. Störm (talk) 05:57, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both Criticism of Pakistan Armed Forces and The Establishment (Pakistan). The Establishment had lots of important content and is of a wider scope while criticism of armed forces is also warranted because Pakistani armed forces are unique in the world that they control everything in Pakistan unlike the rest of the world. Both subjects easily meets WP:GNG. NavjotSR (talk) 13:38, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both per reasons provided above. At first I thought this might be a title dispute but above comments clears it up accurately that what we should do. Aman Kumar Goel^(Talk) 19:14, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I fail to understand the point of this AfD. On what basis is the nom asking for deletion? This article has a much wider scope than "The Establisment". It covers Pak Army's human rights violations in Balochistan, war crimes in Bangladesh, etc. and not just its interference in the non-military affairs of Pakistan. Bharatiya29 15:25, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. qedk (t 桜 c) 06:49, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ookpik Aviation

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only relies on one source, which is non reliable. Is this considered deletion? Bryce M (talk) 15:15, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:50, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:50, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:50, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:GNG WP:NOT I have done a little work on it, but trying to untangle the "written by a five-year-old" is getting tiresome. Maybe someone else can have a go if it passes AfD by some miracle.--Petebutt (talk) 08:09, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete tried to make the article to conform to the norm, removed loads of woffle and some junk. Despite that it doesnt appear to be particularly noteworthy, if had operated a scheduled service of some kind it would make it noteworthy but it appears to be just ad hoc charters. MilborneOne (talk) 23:11, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The airline - and thus also its article - seem notable enough, the absence of scheduled service is imho not relevant. Well written, a fair handfull of references, this article is better than many that are not challenged. Jan olieslagers (talk) 18:41, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 19:09, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SIGCOV. Accounts wanting to keep this page point to WP:OTHERSTUFF, WP:LOTSOFSOURCES, and WP:V without explaining why this particular charter airline is notable. There's still not a single reliable source in the article. Bearian (talk) 18:53, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 09:31, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DC Kizhakemuri Foundation

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable Kerala foundation. Authordom (talk) 16:51, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Authordom (talk) 16:51, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Authordom (talk) 16:51, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. Authordom (talk) 16:51, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Authordom (talk) 16:51, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Authordom (talk) 16:51, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Authordom (talk) 16:51, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to have 3 perfectly respectable independent references. Rathfelder (talk) 18:47, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has a number of RS references. --RaviC (talk) 23:24, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it has multiple reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject already within the article so passes WP:GNG, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:41, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reviewers: Please note, the presented sources do not establish GNG. Please review and see if there are any other sources, thanks.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 16:20, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reviewers - please take a look at this one. I'm concerned about it passing WP:GNG. Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 19:06, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:31, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coder Online IDE

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Almost tagged for CSD as promotional, but given the history, figuring a full AfD would be best. Besides the current article being too promotional, neither the product nor the company that produces it appears to meet WP:GNG. Mainly what I can find is general press-release type stuff. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional. No relevant details for an Encyclopedia entry. Possible created by COI users. Slywriter (talk) 21:25, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 19:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Promo page, not salvagable. N0nsensical.system^(err0r?)_(.log) 09:18, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Per overhaul of article - demonstrating GNG 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:12, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Love & Respect

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is one of the worst sourced articles I have ever seen. If you strip out primary sources (YouTube, Focus On The Family), blogs and other cruft, all that's left is the title.

A Google search shows many sales pages but no substantive coverage, no reviews in mainstream sources or anything like that, just homeschooler blogs and ministries.

The obsessive use of the title Dr. when referring to the author leaves a distinct smell of promotion. Guy (help!) 18:01, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:15, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:15, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sourced -- I started this article in good faith in Aug 2009 it looks like and I don't claim to be an expert in reference material, but I quickly clicked on 7 different articles for other Christian books in this category and this particular article has 28 references, none of the other 7 I looked at were close, if you desire to delete this article based mainly on your personal opinion being the 'Worst Sourced' than you might as well start looking at allllll the other books in this category.

But when I get some time I will go back and look at this and see if I can improve the quality of some of the reference sources for youuuuuu! I believe a request to have the reference sources looked at rather than the article up for deletion would have been a better use of your time and input. Tinkermen (talk) 03:54, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited the previous comment so that it did not appear as a separate section; something that I am sure was not intended. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:35, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- O know nothing of this book but the fact that it has been translated into 7 other languages surely indicates notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:35, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This was a widely discussed book, but it was also a ministry that ran marriage conferences nationwide. Because I immediately found a number of articles giving significant coverage of the book in the year it was published (2004), I suspect that the person who nominated this page for deletion did not look at back issues of newspapers. I only found one formal book review (The Gazette (Colorado Springs), but the conferences/ministry began in 1999, the book came out in 2004, and the conferences continued for years afterwards. Perhaps the article should be about the "Love & Respect" ministry, of which the book seems to have been part. On the other hand I found articles stating that it was a bestseller. and I can see that he has since written many books on the same and similar themes, so I suppose that they do sell. I have taken the liberty of removing the YouTube clip, blogs and other unreliable sources described by the editor nominating this page for deletion. I have also added reliable sources that give significant coverage to the Eggerichs and their ministry, by no means are all of these are flattering.IceFishing (talk) 15:08, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 18:58, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted all of the questionable sources (actually, I think I deleted all sources already on the page when I began,) and added significant coverage in well-known daily newspapers including the Albuquerque Journal and The Tennessean. News coverage began in 2004 and continues.IceFishing (talk) 18:45, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:HEY as the article has been significantly improved with the replacement of unreliable sources with multiple reliable sources such as reliable newspaper coverage so that WP:GNG is passed, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:32, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:54, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stacy Offenberger

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A competitor in beauty pageants who placed third on one of only two national competitions she competed in, and did not place in the other. No sources other than in the context of the pageants. Aside from the usual issues of objectifying women, this article has nothing to show notability of the subject. Guy (help!) 19:15, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:26, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:26, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:40, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:40, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:41, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete state titles are not enough on their own to confer notability, and the sourcing is not enough to show notability either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:43, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 18:58, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - model with no notable wins. If she had, on the other hand, came in third in Miss America, then she might be notable. Bearian (talk) 18:56, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with respect to Bearian, I don't think we need to worry about wins or not. This is a complete WP:GNG fail. There's literally no reliable, independent source coverage about this beauty pageant contest that is both in-depth and at-length. So, per that and per nom, it's a delete. Doug Mehus T·C 02:21, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No coverage whatsoever. As for being a contestant, I couldn't find any specific notability guidelines referring to beauty contestants. Even the relevant WikiProject isn't sure. Therefore I think there are no grounds for deeming her notable. PK650 (talk) 04:19, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:52, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hitec

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find any non-trivial third-party sources that talk about this particular company. The name makes it difficult to search for information, but most of what I've found seems to be about other companies or organisations with the same name. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:15, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:26, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:26, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I CSD it first as it seems to fail GNG/NCOMPANY. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 18:58, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MILL and WP:NCORP. It appears, from what 's on the page now, to be a run of the mill supplier, not a notable manufacturer. Bearian (talk) 19:07, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Naver search brings up only product listings for search terms "ハイテック" and "ハイテックRCD". The Korean article is identical to the English one, so no help there, either. Skeletor3000 (talk) 17:37, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Nower Lodge School. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:59, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stanway School, Dorking

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A non-notable junior school which is barely verifiable - the closest I can find to a reliable source is a listing in the Gabbitas directory. Guy (help!) 19:25, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:27, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:27, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete primary schools are not automatically notable, and there is nothing to indicate this particular school passes GNG on its own merits. Devonian Wombat (talk) 06:01, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or Merge. It cannot remain as it is- it must go. But the issue is how? It has a vast amount of trivia but a few interesting factoids about the building and the etymology of the name. If you examined the job ads in the TES around 1965-1975, you would believe that private pre-prep and prep schools were Dorking's only industry. Pre-prep and prep schools in Dorking is the article we need. If we look to merge to Dorking#Education we will swamp that article. This and other articles about Defunct schools in Surrey achieve notability from their collective mass, rather than their individual merit. We are back at the very political private school- state school debate. We are also back pre 1944 Education Act where secondary primary was still a future concept.(and still is in public schools!) Not easy. ClemRutter (talk) 11:09, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Nower Lodge School as it did in real life, or Dorking#Education. Why a separate article on Education in Dorking can't be created? Bearian (talk) 16:01, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thanks everyone for participating and assuming good faith!
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 18:57, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:33, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Triangle (Internet Marketing)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article has progressed no where, and has no strong references. There are some mentions in internet, though no clear academic papers evident to support, and not as an independent subject of notability. If the data is worth retaining, then it could be merged into Internet marketing with a redirect. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:19, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:19, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 18:50, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - while this looks interesting, it also has no significant coverage in reliable sources. I'm unfamiliar with the three sources on the page now. Bearian (talk) 19:09, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 16:59, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Idahams

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. He has released a few singles and an EP, but none of them have been discussed in reliable sources. The subject has not won or been nominated for any major awards in Nigeria (Nigeria Entertainment Awards and The Headies) or in Africa (MTV Africa Music Awards and All Africa Music Awards). The BAE Awards he is a recipient of is not notable. He is still an up-and-coming artist who has not made his mark in the Nigerian music industry. The sources cited in the article are either about his record deal with Universal or about interviews he granted; none of them are independent of the subject. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 16:18, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 16:18, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 16:18, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 16:18, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: The awards aren't notable at all. But subject has independent media coverage. I guess it passes WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO at minimum level. Lunar Clock (talk) 18:55, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lunar Clock: How exactly does it pass WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO? Can you backed your statement with proof or are you just going to say it passes without any justification? Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 19:06, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am referring to media coverage. There are references from Pulse Nigeria, Nigerian Entertainment Today and Guardian Nigeria. Lunar Clock (talk) 19:22, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which of these sources you mentioned discuss the subject independently of him? The Guardian Nigeria source is a primary source; Q&A sources cannot be used to establish notability. The Nigerian Entertainment Today source is simply a press release about 2Kay's single and cannot be used to establish notability; as a matter of fact, Idahams is not even mention in the source. The Pulse Nigeria source is the only promising source; however, it is not enough to establish notability. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 19:52, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. I was wrong to mention Guardian here. They are just blogs. About the Entertainment Weekly, I've added two more sources. There's one from Independent Nigeria which is credible source too. Please ping me if you find anything wrong in my statement. I'll more than happy to be corrected. Lunar Clock (talk) 21:03, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A strong case of WP:TOOSOON. subject of our discussion isn’t there yet and does not satisfy WP:MUSICBIO and per nom, subject hasn’t made any significant impact in the music industry. I viewed this article some time ago & was going to “AFD it” but forgot to.Celestina007 (talk) 12:02, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think considering the news coverage here (e.g. in Independent Ng, Guardian Ng, Pulse and Music Africa among others), the artist does pass WP:GNG. And definitely pass for WP:MUSICBIO by meeting at least one criteria. Also been signed to a notable record label like Universal Music Group is a plus as well. He has also featured award winning artistes like Teni should also prove notability. SuperSwift (talk) 22:03, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SuperSwift: Which criterion of WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO does he pass? Being signed to a major record label and being featured on a Teni song doesn't make one notable. If the notability criteria was that simple, everyone and their mother would be notable. Judging by your comments, you clearly haven't fully grasp Wikipedia's notability standards. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 22:50, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -Hey SuperSwift, you are a/an NPP hence should be grounded in all things pertaining notability as this is pivotal to your duties so please do tell us the community, where it states in Singer & GNG that featuring a notable artist in a song qualifies/or makes the song owner automatically notable & deserving of inclusion? I’m listening.Celestina007 (talk) 23:54, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply -hello Versace1608 and Celestina007 I dropped those links from reliable media houses in Nigeria. I'd say it passes for GNG because it passes for significant coverage, reliable, independent of the subject. My mentioning Teni was just to spice it up. I know being featured isn't a justification. If the article was not written properly, I feel that can be addressed. SuperSwift (talk) 09:45, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per SuperSwift. Also the subject pass for WP:BASIC with credible sources like Guardian Ng, Vanguard amongst others and also pass for WP:Songwriters criteria #1 having written the song “no one else” by Mr 2Kay which topped ITunes chart and also other songs for notable artists like Duncan Mighty, Solid Star. Kaizenify (talk) 23:28, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hello Kaizenify, a couple of things, let’s start with notability of the subject, I have seen some comments relating to subject of our discussion passing some criteria under WP:NMUSIC but I’d also like to point this out; an article on a music artist may be notable if they satisfy any criterion under WP:MUSIC but ironically even satisfying one or more criteria is no real evidence of notability if they do not satisfy WP:GNG & So I’m still voicing Versace1608, who raises the question of does our subject of discussion have in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources? My take is No. You also mention something about subject of our discussion satisfying WP:BASIC even though I doubt that, perharps you can provide any three best sources that shows he has in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of him also I should note that PR payola is not notable & should not be included in any of the three sources you may want to bring forward. @SuperSwift your assistance may be required in this regard. On a jovial note @HandsomeBoy, I noticed you !voted a delete initially but later completely removed & deleted your entire entry from this AFD. What seems to be the problem? Is this an error or did you decide to wear the “human compassion” hat? Haha.Celestina007 (talk) 13:50, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 17:06, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Lunar Clock as it does passes for WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO... Mere searching of the subject on google reveals various independent sources which include in Pulse Nigeria, Independent NG, coverage on Guardian life here and here, with mentions on NET e.t.c. The subject might be at borderline notability but it’s definitely worth keeping. Timmylegend (talk) 22:21, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Timmylegend could you identify which exact criterion in GNG & ANYBIO subject of discussion satisfies & please substantiate that with a reliable source. This comment is not in bad faith but rather i’d like to observe this article from your own lens/perspective.Celestina007 (talk) 13:29, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Timmylegend: You are not bringing anything new to this discussion. The Guardian Life and Independent Nigeria sources you cited are not independent of the subject. Like I stated earlier, the Pulse Nigeria source is the only promising source. In the Independent Nigeria source, Idahams is described as a "fast rising singer, songwriter and instrmentalist". The fact that he is described as a fast-rising act should be an indication that he isn't yet notable. Idahams has not done anything in the Nigeria music industry worth talking about. What hit songs has he released? What notable awards has he won? Which of his music releases have been critically reviewed? Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 00:19, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I’d like the closing administrator to note that majority of those !voting keep are merely doing a “drive by voting” & generally have shown an unwillingness to co-operate by refusing to enter a productive dialogue with those with the opposing rationale, who have raised important questions that have remained unanswered.Celestina007 (talk) 19:20, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sources ("Pulse", "Vanguard", "Nigerian Entertainment Today") satisfy me that WP:GNG has been met. Dflaw4 (talk) 11:13, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see no reason to delete this article, the page creator provide every necessary citations needed for WP:GNG, many of them are reliable sources discussing about the matter. Many websites are discussing about him, and they are reliable sources. If such biographical articles are to be deleted they shall be here again one day by another, wheather you like it or not. What I can see is he is a young rising notable musucian, that does not makes him un notable, as long as he meets the WP:GNG that is enough, from my perspective he meets the requirements. As far as those citations are concern he meets the requirements.

Anasskoko (talk) 13:44, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As a musician, NMUSIC NMUSICBIO should be the criteria. Bahb the Illuminated (talk) 21:28, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ mazca ^talk 17:46, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relist comment - A majority of the participants in the discussion have asserted that the artist passes relevant notability guidelines, but nobody's responded to some seemingly-valid criticisms of a lot of the sources used for that. Some more uninvolved editors assessing this would help us reach a consensus. ~ mazca ^talk 17:48, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: To help focus the discussion, "Guardian Nigeria", "Independent Nigeria" and "Entertainment Tonight Nigeria" seem to be the sources that are being challenged. (I've already voted). Dflaw4 (talk) 00:41, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is that the precedent set at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_NFL_records_held_by_Jerry_Rice_(2nd_nomination) should apply to these lists as well. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:08, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of career achievements by Brett Favre

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

All three "achievement" articles were created in the good faith effort to reduce the size of their respective "biography" topics (I know it was in good faith, because I created List of career achievements by Brett Favre). However, similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of NFL records held by Jerry Rice (2nd nomination), these lists fail multiple Wikipedia policies and guidelines. They have also suffered from the addition of superfluous "records" that are not commonly reported on.

From WP:NOTSTATS (Policy): Where statistics are so lengthy as to impede the readability of the article, the statistics can be split into a separate article and summarized in the main article. This would seem to justify the existence of these lists. However, just a sentence later the same policy points us to WP:LISTN (Notability guideline) to determine whether the statistics themselves are notable enough to be summarized in a standalone list.
From WP:LISTN (Notability guideline): Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list [emphasis added]. Thus, we need to determine if "[Individual QB's] achievements" as a group is discussed in reliable sources. Although their achievements are clearly discussed by reliable sources, these achievements are inherently tied to the biography of the specific QB. Sources that do discuss their achievements focus on commonly understood records and awards, such as: MVP awards, most passing yards, Pro Bowls, etc. They don't discuss records like Most wins by a starting quarterback, cold weather or being 5th place in the category Most regular season games, 4+ touchdown passes, home, career. This brings up WP:OR (Policy) issues, as many of these records require database queries on dedicated statbook websites.
These articles have and will continue to suffer from WP:RECENTISM (Explanatory supplement), as sources heavily focus on a player during their career with regards to records, but die down after retirement. This is especially true with Brett Favre, as his achievement list now notes very detailed "records" that he is in 5th place.

Noting that WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP, it is important to point out that when all of the superfluous/statbook records are removed from the achievement lists, the actual records and achievements are already sufficiently covered in the biography articles. Thus, these articles should be deleted/redirected to their respective biographies articles per WP:NOTSTATS and WP:LISTN, noting similar precedent in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of NFL records held by Jerry Rice (2nd nomination). Take a look at Jerry Rice to see how even one of the most celebrated players in NFL history still adequately covers his records and achievements in a relatively brief article. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:56, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:56, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:50, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:51, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per same reasons as Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_NFL_records_held_by_Jerry_Rice_(2nd_nomination). Useight (talk) 19:18, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nominator and comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of NFL records held by Jerry Rice (2nd nomination). The Favre list now has 257,000 bytes of data with layers and sublayers of trivia that would require continuing updating. Props to Gonzo for recognizing that his good-faith creation from 2008 has grown into a bit of monster. . . . Paging Dr. Frankenstein. Cbl62 (talk) 18:26, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For the reasons mentioned by others. What is important can be fit into the main bio page. FlaviusFunderburke (talk) 19:13, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge to the main articles. Wikipedia is not Stats. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 20:25, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above. Also, it is a slippery slope - soon every athlete will have a bio page and a stat page. It is also significant to note that there are dedicated stat websites such as pro football reference which we could never compete with if we tried. Better to avoid trying altogether. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 19:25, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. All statscruft. Ajf773 (talk) 08:28, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too much detail, more like a stats article. Would be suitable for a sports almanac. Try another wiki.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:45, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:06, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Boris Palatnik

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

no evidence of notability; no independent (or any) sources; purely promotional Sirlanz (talk) 16:25, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:28, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:28, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found one mention of Palatnik here, but nothing else. Vexations (talk) 17:06, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I saw one advertising-like source, but overall there is precious little. GNG fail.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:13, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:ANYBIO, nothing found that implies wikinotability, also WP:NOTPROMOTION. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:40, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's nothing to prove that Palatnik passes WP:GNG. The only source appears to be his personal website and even that is a permanent deadlink. Best, GPL93 (talk) 01:16, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There does not seem to be enough sources to pass GNG. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 14:33, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL - there are a couple of possible sources, but really, is a designer of walking canes notable? Or is this just spam for a luxury accessory? Bearian (talk) 19:53, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:06, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Slowmo

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable DJ who does not satisfy WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO & WP:ENT. Celestina007 (talk) 16:22, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:22, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:22, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:22, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:22, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable DJ.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:11, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No RS coverage found in a search.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:44, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - in addition to the sources in the article (3 probably unreliable and one reliable, the Dallas News), there's this, (which is possibly tangential) and some blogs. He's not a complete nobody, but there's likewise not much in terms of reliable sources beyond his community. Please ping me if you find better sources, or if you can convince a redirect would work. Bearian (talk) 20:12, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Fails to meet any applicable notability standard Nosebagbear (talk) 16:04, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Martins Eyerakpo

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject of article does not satisfy WP:NFOOTY & possesses insufficient coverage in reliable sources. Celestina007 (talk) 15:59, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:59, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:59, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:59, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:59, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:02, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:02, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:54, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NFOOTY as no reliable sources were found to support any of the teams listed that he may have played for. Lapablo (talk) 10:22, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:58, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article about semi-pro footballer which doesn't satisfy the GNG. Jogurney (talk) 18:30, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is that the primary content itself hasn't been shown to be notable, though it may be in the future. At that point it can be recreated. Nosebagbear (talk) 16:07, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spin-spacetime EPR Gedanken-Experiment

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not the venue to promote ideas from arXiv preprints that have not been formally published or even cited by other researchers. I prod'ed the article; the prod was removed by the article creator, who has a conflict of interest. The rationale for removing the prod (cut off in the edit summary, but readable on the Talk page) does not address the basic problem that it is, at best, too soon to call this topic notable. Other than reference 5, the citations are background material and do not pertain to this specific topic. XOR'easter (talk) 15:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 15:11, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please Check again SEE REF 6 that I added today - it is the peer-reviewed well-known conference of QUANTUM 2019 that contains this topic (see p. 174 in http://www.quantum2019.unito.it/files/Abstracts_sum.pdf) !

Furthermore, let me add that the arxiv preprint "Spin spacetime censorship" (ref 5) was sent by me and prof Ido Kaminer to Nature Physics. The editors of Nature physics decided that this work is important and therefore they sent it to referees. We are currently waiting for their answers. I've made an effort to make this topic well explained and well presented because I believe that it is important for the field of quantum gravity - using this gedanken experiment one can rule out certain quantum gravity theories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nemirov1 (talk • contribs) 23:15, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The mere fact that a research item was presented at a conference does not make it notable, in Wikipedia's sense of the word, and neither does the mere fact of appearing in a journal (all the more so if the peer review process is still ongoing). Tens of thousands of papers are published and sink with the merest ripple. We have to have evidence that the scientific community has paid significant attention to it. If conference presentations, arXiv preprints and papers currently in review at respectable journals qualified, I could create half a dozen articles about my own research, but they don't, so I haven't. Wikipedia does not try to lead the scientific consensus; it only follows. XOR'easter (talk) 23:21, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think this is a clear case of WP:FORUM. To quote the relevant part of the policy: Wikipedia is not the place to publish "Primary (original) research, such as proposing theories and solutions, original ideas, defining terms, coining new words, etc. If you have completed primary research on a topic, your results should be published in other venues, such as peer-reviewed journals, other printed forms, open research, or respected online publications. Wikipedia can report your work after it is published and becomes part of accepted knowledge; however, citations of reliable sources are needed to demonstrate that material is verifiable, and not merely the editor's opinion." Tercer (talk) 15:59, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Löschen I was unable to find any indepeendent reliable sourcing for this topic. Without indpendent reliable sourcing, the topic completely fails notability thresholds per WP:GNG. With no sourcing, there is no verfiable material in the Wikipedia sense of the word, so alternatives to deletion WP:ATD are closed off as well. Hence delete. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 18:37, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Löschen. This is a well-written article, with a number of sources. However, the majority of the sources only provide background information -- thus, while important to the article, they fail to show notability of the topic at hand. To quote the page creator, from an unsigned comment on the talk page, this thought experiment has been presented in several conferences including QUANTUM 2019 (Torino, Italy) and the pre-print ("Spin-spacetime censorship") is now in a review process in Nature physics. The conference paper is better than nothing, but a pre-print is not a reliable source. Overall, this the GNG are not met.

Further, I want to ask @Nemirov1 if he has a conflict of interest to disclose. BenKuykendall (talk) 18:54, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per XOReaster.--MaoGo (talk) 19:04, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is manifestly not suitable for Wikipedia.--Srleffler (talk) 02:55, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Topic is not notable at the moment, maybe in the future... WP:TOOSOON and WP:NOTESSAY. Kj cheetham (talk) 16:59, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per WP:TOOSOON and WP:OR. Having read the article, it does look promising, but the concept is too new to include here, and is essentially original research. A redirect to Quantum gravity is another solution, pardon the pun. Bearian (talk) 20:17, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus that it doesn't show standalone notability and isn't suitable content Nosebagbear (talk) 16:08, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Death knight (Dungeons & Dragons)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This fails to establish notability. The reception is one of several trivial lists in that book. TTN (talk) 14:44, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:44, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:44, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:44, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:GAMEGUIDE for material that is essentially from the game guide and the rest does not meet WP:GNG. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 14:54, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not supposed to be a monster manual.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:47, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:GAMEGUIDE Chetsford (talk) 18:20, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The only non-primary source actually talking about the D&D version being used in the article is the "For Dummies" book, and as that was written by employees of Wizards of the Coast who are designers of the game, its independence its highly debatable. Searching for additional sources regarding the D&D version also brought up nothing substantial in reliable, secondary sources, thus making the topic fail the WP:GNG. The sources talking about the concept of Death Knights appearing in completely different games and media are, of course, irrelevant to establishing any kind of notability for the D&D version. Rorshacma (talk) 18:39, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom as failing WP:GNG. Question - should Death knight be kept either, seeing as this is the only non-PTM page on it?_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 00:14, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:29, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cambodia–Poland relations

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

deleted twice before. Very little interaction between the countries. Article even says "Two countries established relations in 1956, but the remoteness of Cambodia meant nothing much developed." LibStar (talk) 14:31, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:35, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:35, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom and per previous 2 AfDs. Insufficient coverage in independant reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. Yilloslime (talk) 16:50, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. LibStar (talk) 02:08, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Insufficient suitable sources to show notability Nosebagbear (talk) 16:13, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Richard James Merritt

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non notable youtuber, only sources that exist are unreliable/press releases. Praxidicae (talk) 14:15, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we do not build articles on just press releases, well we are not supposed to.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:32, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:58, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not pass GNG; trivial and reads like a short promo piece. Kierzek (talk) 00:47, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SIGCOV. Other than the one news source about the effort to find the owner of a lost wedding ring, which which was a single news cycle, there's zero available online sources about this person from reliable sources. Tens of millions of people have made YouTube videos. Bearian (talk) 20:27, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Non-notable, under any notability guideline Nosebagbear (talk) 16:14, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Conley

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NGRIDIRON, having never played professionally. Only coverage I can find is transactions-related or "local kid signs with an NFL team" after the draft. FCS offensive linemen who don't play professionally are rarely notable. Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:14, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:14, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:14, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:14, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable football player. The fact that this article survived 10 years is sad.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:17, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NGRIDIRON (no pro games) and WP:NCOLLATH (All-MEAC in 2008 doesn't suffice), and I'm not finding significant coverage of the type required to pass WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 17:59, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This football player isn't notable. He hasn't played in any pro games and doesn't have enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. TK421bsod (talk) 18:14, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NGRIDIRON, and WP:NCOLLATH. Ejgreen77 (talk) 08:52, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Has not played professionally. Offensive lineman are tough to write about even the ones that play some NFL games. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 15:36, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ANYBIO, WP:N, WP:GNG, WP:NGRIDIRON, and WP:NCOLLATH.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:45, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The broad consensus about Wikipedia's treatment of in-universe plot elements from fiction has changed signficantly since the last AfD in 2007, and the majority of participants here seem to view this list as excessive. Only a minority of the elements are blue-linked - and a few of those themselves may not survive AfD - and most participants seem to feel that the necessary other elements are covered sufficiently at Narnia (world). While a lack of secondary-sourced coverage doesn't always preclude a well-maintained list, the lack of rational inclusion criteria here leads to a large number of remarkably minor locations about which nothing much can be written in an encyclopedic way. Consensus therefore seems to be that this article no longer fulfils our inclusion criteria per WP:LISTN and WP:NOTPLOT. ~ mazca ^talk 16:57, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of places in The Chronicles of Narnia

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This fails WP:LISTN, and it is not a justified content split. Narnia (world) is completely sufficient to discuss the fictional world and its important locales. There is no need to list every single trivial location in the series. TTN (talk) 14:03, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:03, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:03, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:03, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is a redundant content fork of Narnia (world) § Geography. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 14:43, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an uneeded content fork.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:05, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is the second attempt to delete this article and the overwhelming majority of "keep" votes recorded then are worth noting before a second decision is made. As it stands the Narnia (world) article has only brief and superficial coverage of locales, although there might be a case for merger. The List of places in The Chronicles of Narnia presently draws an average of 63 daily views indicating a significant degree of interest in an important aspect of a very popular children's fiction series; the appeal of which is largely based on the carefully constructed and described geography of another world. I am just concerned that the arbitary deletion of a long established article for no very convincing reason would disappoint many of the younger readers that we want to attract to Wikipedia. Buistr (talk) 21:03, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The previous AfD was in 2007, so it's pretty much 100% irrelevant to the Wikipedia of today. The treatment of fiction has radically changed in the last decade. As for those looking for such content, they can go to Fandom or another fan wiki. There's really no encyclopedic benefit to a two sentence laundry list of fictional items. Redirecting there provides little context that could just as easily explained in prose in the linking-article. It's a waste of time to send the user there. Those looking for more in-depth coverage will be disappointed regardless. Wikipedia has no duty to cover every aspect of a fictional world, and the fact that the main world of Narnia is most certainly worthy of an article (though renaming it to broaden the topic might be useful) means encyclopedic content on the world will remain regardless. TTN (talk) 21:09, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:59, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is a whole lot of in-universe plot summary that is either largely unsourced or relying on primary sources. The actually important locations that do not have independent articles are already covered at Narnia (world). The vast bulk of the rest of these entries are a bizarre mixture of very minor locations, locations that never actually appeared in the books but were "mentioned" by a character, and things that are not locations at all. While there are sources that do talk about the major locations in the series, they are, again, already covered elsewhere, and there are no sources that would allow this huge amount of cruft to pass WP:LISTN. Rorshacma (talk) 00:44, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Most of the blue links have their own articles and there is enough of them to justify the list article. These blue links are not listed in the other article. Dream Focus 01:55, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I actually looked into that, and there are only 15 blue links that actually link to independent articles (several of them actually link to the same article), and three of those link to the real life cities of Cambridge, Finchley, and London. And, of the 12 remaining, I only see a couple that would likely be found independently notable, as most of those are minor locations sourced only to the Narnia books. Additionally, ten of those twelve are discussed/mentioned in the main Narnia (world) article, with appropriate links to their own articles. If you pruned the list down to only the 12 legitimate blue links, instead of the over 90 entries of cruft, there is really nothing there that would justify a list split from the parent article, when nearly all of the information and links are already included there. Rorshacma (talk) 02:27, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Löschen - I have been on the fence with this one, as I usually am regarding lists. However I note that Narnia Fandom Wiki has such a list, and their list links to more information on their wiki. I think that is the appropriate wiki project for this information, and the discussion above indicates that any notable information in the list is already preserved elsewhere on Wikipedia. This list is not adding to the freedom of knowledge, and Wikipedia's higher search rankings actually means that the better information on the fandom site lacks visibility. I looked at the 2007 arguments for retention and see that none of them really concerned the notability of the information per WP:GNG, because criteria were different then. I cannot see how this meets GNG, and I actually think interested readers would be better served if it were gone. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 07:52, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sirfurboy, For what it's worth, WP:GNG doesn't apply to lists, if that helps you with your argument as I see you're "on the fence." See my !vote and own argument below. Doug Mehus T·C 02:15, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rorshacma's analysis. A list of overwhelmingly nonnotable fictional locations, Narnia (world) already covers almost all notable locations. – sgeureka ^t•c 08:29, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kommentar Our first link goes to an article that has been posted as too in-universe for 11 years. So not all the way back to the last discussion on this matter. I really do not see an encyclopedic value to having this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:27, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If the blue linked articles are not notable, then send them to AFD or turn them into redirects. The list article is useful for navigation, and this is a valid subject if there are a lot of articles in this subject which it links to. Dream Focus 18:34, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Fancruft that does not merit a separate list._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:53, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete primary-sourced or un-sourced plot minutiae. ValarianB (talk) 18:54, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - they have different but overlapping content that would make the main Narnia world article better. Bearian (talk) 20:29, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Bearian. There's some overlapping coverage, but it's not a complete duplicate content fork, so that portion of the "keep" arguments is thus invalidated. As well, given the age of this alphabetical list, which is arguably the better of the two, likely precludes us from outright deleting per WP:ATT. The merge should occur at the talk page of the subject list; we shouldn't dictate where or how to merge. Sure, this list needs some improvement to meet WP:LISTN, but it's not a complete fail, either. As well, we have to remember "keep" and "merge" are essentially variants of each other; thus, those who !voted "keep" despite this being not a vote will likely be amenable to a merge in some fashion. That is, they just oppose deletion (for different, some incorrect, reasons). Doug Mehus T·C 02:12, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Almost entirely unsourced (therefore also do not merge), fails WP:NOTPLOT. Sandstein 18:31, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sandstein, True, to a certain extent, in that there are no in-line citations/footnotes, but I do note is a provided bibliography to the print text from reliable sources where one might logically speculate that's where the sourcing comes from. The prose is well written, so I'm hesitant to endorse deletion. Could we endorse soft delete so WP:REFUND to one's userspace can apply, in order to fill in and add needed footnotes? Doug Mehus T·C 19:10, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dmehus, plot summary at this level of detail is in my view not worth keeping in any form, no matter how well written or potentially sourceable. It is simply out of our project scope per WP:NOTPLOT, just as much as other forms of WP:NOT content such as essays or original research. The place for such content is fan wikis or other specialized websites. Sandstein 19:44, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:SNOW Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:44, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clyde McKnight

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:SINGER, WP:COMPOSER, and WP:GNG. The article is full of incorrect information. The article states that Clyde McKnight has had three songs ("Simon Sez", "Drop It Down", and "Rockstar") on the Billboard chart; it's wrong (see billboard.com). The article states that he was featured on Lisa Lopes's "Block Party" off of Eye Legacy; it's wrong (see apple.com). The article states that he wrote Willow Smith's "21st Century Girl" and Mario's "Somebody Else"; it's wrong (see sony.com and warnerchappell.com). I googled Clyde McKnight's name, but couldn't find significant coverage in third-party reliable sources. 118.8.88.129 (talk) 13:52, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination on behalf of IP user. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:01, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:01, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:01, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:01, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:01, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 14:02, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Lolololol Every link on the page is dead but here's his Twitter account. Not remotely notable. Reywas92^Talk 19:23, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per WP:HOAX - The nominator is correct about false assertions, as someone recently vandalized "21st Century Girl"; "Somebody Else", and "Block Party" to insert this guy's name in the credits. Unfortunately a few of those have been copied to other websites, which will probably result in more misinformation. Once we get past the untruths, Mr. McKnight has nothing but self-created social media promotions and stuff he put on YouTube himself. The chart section in McKnight's article has completely false chart information, and note that his so-called "collaborators" -- YG (rapper) and DJ Mustard -- have never talked about him. Also, he would have been less than ten years old at the time of his supposed collaboration with Lisa "Left Eye" Lopes, which you'd think would get some news coverage. Note that searching can be tough because there are at least two other people of the same name: a much older criminal defendant and someone related to Brian McKnight. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:34, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have placed the HOAX tag at the top of the article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:34, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doomsdayer520, I've tagged the article as a CSD, G3 ie speedy delete as hoax. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 21:27, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete This article has being on WP for far too long. Mattg82 (talk) 20:05, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:40, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Second Battle of Beruna

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This battle is only briefly mentioned in the few sources that I can access. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 13:31, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 13:31, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 13:31, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 13:31, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTPLOT. TTN (talk) 13:59, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The battle is not really notable beyond the book itself. Anything we need to say can be covered in the article on the book, including comments on film adaptations.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:01, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:40, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First Battle of Beruna

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It is only mentioned in passing by the few accessible sources. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 13:31, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 13:31, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 13:31, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 13:31, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTPLOT. TTN (talk) 13:59, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Like our armies in Middle-earth article, this is an example of an article taking its source material too seriously.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:59, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fictional event failing NFICTION, pure WP:PLOT.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 21:20, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus individual isn't notable Nosebagbear (talk) 16:17, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John Destin

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NGRIDIRON, having never played professionally. Eagles 24/7 (C) 13:21, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 13:21, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 13:21, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 13:21, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We need to find a way to stop the gun jumping and creation of these articles when people are signed when playing in a game is the threshold of notability. However I think it is not a reasonable threshold, playing in one game. We have way too many articles on non-notable people right now.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:22, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the American football player articles I've nominated for deletion this month were created by the same user in around 2010–2011, and they're all so obscure that they've therefore escaped scrutiny for this long. I am hopeful that in the last decade it has become easier to spot the creation of articles like this one and nip them in the bud sooner. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:05, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NGRIDIRON (no pro games) and WP:NCOLLATH (no major awards) and I'm not finding significant coverage of the type required by WP:GNG. I'm finding mostly announcements from his 2010 signing with Buffalo. I also found a feature story from the Tulsa World in November 2009 ("From the blogs: Destin's story is a good one", 478 words, available at NewsLibrary.com). If in-depth coverage from sources other than the Tulsa World is found, I'd reconsider. Cbl62 (talk) 17:49, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NGRIDIRON, and WP:NCOLLATH. Like Cbl62, I'd be willing to reconsider if additional sources of significant coverage could be produced. Ejgreen77 (talk) 08:54, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable fails GNG. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 02:08, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 18:28, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leszek Rychlewski

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lenghty article but the subject does not seem to meet GNG/NBIO/NPROF. Sources are mainly in passing or by the subject. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:04, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:04, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:07, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:01, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:01, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:01, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 14:02, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Subject has over 10,000 citations on Google Scholar, which looked like a keep. The highest cited works have an extremely large number of coauthors. There are several with 100s of citations, however. The article is pretty promotional, and focuses too much on his BioInfoBank company. The sourcing is not great. I'm split between a keep and a WP:TNT delete. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:42, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are absolutely 0 results for him on JSTOR, he doesn't meet the subject-specific notability guidelines for Academics. Angus1986 (talk) 11:16, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:03, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson Morgan

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:GNG and the biographical notability, this individual doesn't meet notability criteria. → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 13:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, this article was previously deleted per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Morgan Jackson as there was some confusion over the individual's name. → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 13:51, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BIO. Article claims he worked on notable music yet there are no sources to back it. LibStar (talk) 14:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable songwriter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:16, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:03, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:03, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per above. No coverage of note I could find. Grammy nomination is false, as there are no nominations under his name. Why do they even bother? PK650 (talk) 23:28, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - assuming the credit can be sourced, he wrote two hit songs. Bearian (talk) 20:34, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 12:57, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yōichi Amano

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails notability guidelines only has one source which does not make the subject notable. Having your work published in a magazine is not the same as having your work published in a national news source or getting your face put on the front cover Jaxbrother (talk) 16:26, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:05, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:05, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:05, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Most coverage about him is in Japanese -- a search under his name on Natalie (considered reliable by WP:ANIME) provides a long list of articles that can be used to attribute to the existence of his works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lullabying (talk • contribs) 17:41, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:04, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 11:53, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Lullabying. ミラ P 16:11, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:57, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deepa Nisanth

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article does not meet any general notability guidelines, I could not find anything out there to establish her notability .there is no notable works from this person and the sources included in the article are just the apologizes for plagiarism,and her support of a protest. So she clearly fails WP:GNG WP:AUTHOR, WP:ANYBIO, WP:POET Padavalam Kuttan Pilla Talk 11:40, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions.-- Padavalam Kuttan Pilla Talk 12:22, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:04, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:04, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:04, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:04, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Almost all sources explains about a controversy related to her. Fails WP:BASIC. GargAvinash (talk) 05:04, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:55, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lesa Wilson

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Well, this was prodded but her publicist removed it. Fails WP:ANYBIO, WP:NACTOR, WP:NMUSICIAN and WP:GNG. It was somewhat refreshing to see her publicist admit editing the article, but fitting, as their is no notability here. John from Idegon (talk) 11:11, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:38, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:38, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:38, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: She may soon become notable as an actress, but, at the moment, she just hasn't done enough work to pass the actress notability standards. I don't think that reaching the semi-finals of American Idol is, in and of itself, particularly notable either. If others can find more information about her music career, or if others deem her modelling career to be notable (I don't have any opinion about this), I'll be happy to reconsider my vote. Dflaw4 (talk) 14:56, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable state level beauty queen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:05, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:06, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:06, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:07, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:07, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:08, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - We have a publicist's admission that the article is part of a promotional effort. Good luck to Ms. Wilson as she attempts to break into acting, but so far she has non-notable beauty pageants, low-ranking competition appearances, and minor supporting roles that are not enough for Wikipedia's various notability rules for actors, musicians, and celebrities. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:16, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There seems to have been an editing war on the page itself between the subject's publicist and the nominator. There was a "filmography" section which the nominator deleted—this section may affect the opinions of other voters, so I would suggest checking the old edit as well. Personally, I still believe that the subject falls short of the acting standards, but not by much. Dflaw4 (talk) 00:24, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: To clarify, I was not suggesting that either the publicist or the nominator were in the wrong, but was simply encouraging others to fully apprise themselves of the subject's acting credits. Thanks, Dflaw4 (talk) 00:46, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG, as well as WP:NACTOR etc. The publicist's promotional efforts extend to a smear campaign against John from Idegon which includes a hint of legal threat, so if there was any discretion to be applied here, I'd not exercise it in Wilson's favour. But as far as I can see, this is actually a clearcut fail. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:41, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails notability criteria, WP:GNG. ZettaComposer (talk) 01:48, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Dflaw4. Barely anything about her. Fails WP:GNG. _SUPER ^ASTIG 06:48, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was unable to find any significant coverage of this person in independent, reliable sources. Current references include the website of the beauty pageant, the website of the singing competition, and a school's alumni list. None of those are independent. There is also a passing mention in the Washington Post but that is not significant coverage. I searched for something more substantive and was not successful. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:35, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Others have analyzed the quality of the sources, and I must agree. Let's go through the claims for notability. Miss USA is not the same as Miss America, which would create automatic notability for the winner and two runners-up. Likewise, runner-up in American Idol can be a start to notability, if the singer tours and performs or records, and that were documents in reliable sources, which is not present here. Acting in a YouTube video or web series doesn't come close to notability because everybody including me has done it. None of the other professional activities has been in any way notable, as we define it. This is not a judgement on the subject's singing or acting ability, nor a prediction about future fame. She's just not famous enough. We are a charity, not a free web host for people, and in 2020 everybody should know that. Bearian (talk) 20:54, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Hi everyone. Lesa Wilson here, the subject of this page and discussion. If you are all against the page being updated to reflect the current information regarding my work, please delete it as soon as possible. It's rendering outdated information in google search results. Someone created this page when I was on American Idol, then updated it with information from Miss USA in 2006 when I was originally deemed worthy of wikipedia status. Regardless of my current level of "fame" or "relevance" as you speak of in this chat, the page is still outdated. My publicist was simply updating the information to be current. We didn't realize it was so offensive for someone on my team to contribute here because it's a site that can be edited by anyone. I'm no wiki expert, but I don't see why that would cause such a big discussion. However, if the argument is relevancy, then perhaps you should delete all the wiki pages that are associated with former beauty queens and reality tv show contestants so that you're staying in accordance with the wikipedia relevancy standard as described in this chat. Most of the women I competed with have gone on to be stay at home mothers, yet they still have wikipedia pages. Additionally, to address the previous poster's comments, please recheck your facts as to the relevancy of Miss USA. It's the largest pageant in the United States and is a worldwide organization that continues on to Miss Universe. Miss America is a much smaller organization with far less reach or prestige. As for the comments about my acting work, I've not acted in a YouTube series. I've worked as a cast member in major motion pictures and in productions that are on network television. Once again, please recheck your facts before making such dismissive statements about my body of work. Thank you all for your time. I trust that this will be resolved quickly. LesaWilson (talk) 07:39, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:49, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Erin Hay

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The only source listed is a personal webpage. Totally fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Also the entire article is written in a promotional tone. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 10:27, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 10:27, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:47, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:47, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we cannot create articles sourced only to the subject's own webpage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:07, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article does not meet WP:GNG and is completely reliant on sources from their own website. Edi7* ^{(Message Me! • 📜)} 07:45, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT, WP:V, and WP:SIGCOV. Let's face it, this page goes beyond promotion, to just bad writing, and would need to be started from scratch to made a real encyclopedia article. There's whole paragraphs of multiple dependent clauses and parentheses inserted. Then there's the basic problem of lack of reliable sources and verifiability. The only news articles about an "Erin Hay" that I could find were about a school administrator, who appears to be a different person. Many years ago, we decided that school admins are not notable, short of perhaps the very largest school districts in the world, and I don't want to re-litigate that horror. In any case, if you find something, please ping me, but right now, there's literally zero coverage of any kind. Bearian (talk) 21:02, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with the above, adding that I couldn't find any charting songs/albums. PK650 (talk) 22:16, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:02, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zapp Scooters Limited

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of any notability. The "Sources" are clearly all parroted press releases - some even say "source from Zapp". Searches reveal more adverts. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 09:56, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 09:56, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 09:56, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:48, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are of dubious quality. The yahoo.com source is actually not written by Yahoo! but by PA Media, which offers PR Services. Vexations (talk) 14:27, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:54, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On-Line Gamers Anonymous

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't seems to have sufficient notability for the organization's inclusion as an independent article in wikipedia. C933103 (talk) 21:25, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. C933103 (talk) 21:25, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:02, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 00:11, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep not much of use has been added since the article has been created. Mostly, I think, because people are addicted to Facebook, Instagram, YouTube and Twitter so they're spending less time on Wikipedia (that's a bit of a joke)... If you check in Google Scholar and Google Books, there is some coverage, even newer coverage, that could be used to cobble this together and make it look more WP:N. I'm a bit ambivalent about it. - Scarpy (talk) 21:57, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In the nearly two decades since her son's death, Liz Woolley has received more press than the organization itself (although mainly from interviews), yet both individuals collectively have never had anything more on Wikipedia than a one-sentence mention on EverQuest. OLGA itself has had next to no independent third-party coverage and the article has consequently remained a stub since its 2008 creation while still reading like an advertisement. Sourcing as a whole therein is dubious at best; six (of eleven) citations are from the company website, no trace of the London Free Press article is online, and CyberSightings is just a brief passage and contact info. GScholar and GBooks bring up other passing mentions in journals/reference guides with no in-depth content. Only the Maclean's article goes into any serious detail about OLGA's history, but that's not enough to pass WP:NCORP. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 05:47, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, N0nsensical.system^(err0r?)_(.log) 09:38, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per sixty nine. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 12:27, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:50, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jumanne Mtambalike

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to have created for promotional purposes and fails WP:GNG whatsoever. Abishe (talk) 07:50, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 07:50, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 07:50, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:GNG, reads like an advertisement. N0nsensical.system^(err0r?)_(.log) 09:44, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails the GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:23, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article is written like an advertisement. TK421bsod (talk) 18:24, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:01, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mall Road, Delhi

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Clearly fails WP:GNG. The content also solely relies upon a primary source. Abishe (talk) 07:39, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 07:39, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 07:39, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:44, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added more content related to the topic and added independent reliable resources.Rajeev Gaur123 (talk) 12:03, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the added citations have little-to-nothing to say about the subject (at best, they're primary source listings, which still don't contribute to notability). _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:30, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Is this supposed to be an official neighborhood or just a road? Why were the past members of the legislature added? I wouldn't say on Fifth Avenue who its past congresspeople are... The landmarks can be merged to North Delhi or Timarpur or whatever the appropriate district article is. Haqiqat Nagar is the only article that links here and provides nothing and is in North West Delhi. Reywas92^Talk 00:54, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just another street. Absolutely nothing to support a claim of notability. Wikipedia is not a random collection of information.TheLongTone (talk) 15:42, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. qedk (t 桜 c) 06:51, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Association of Baptist Churches in Ireland churches

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:DIRECTORY of non-notable buildings, only source is non-independent. Reywas92^Talk 07:12, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 07:12, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 07:12, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- This is even worse that the Leicester Methodist case recently under discussion: it is nothing but a list, not even with links to the websites of individual churches. A denominational directory is likely to be accurate, if not independent, but churches open and close. The denomination will (or should) keep its directory up to date. This would not be maintained. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:33, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:12, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Löschen. I initiated the 2nd nomination of this article and the reasons remain the same as the last: it's a simple directory of non notable churches. Ajf773 (talk) 19:12, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I hadn't noticed it was discussed before, just nominated it with Twinkle. I see some people were like "Ooh shiny object!" about the two blue links possibly being toward LISTN, but lol no. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saintfield Baptist Church Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Limavady Baptist Church Reywas92^Talk 19:36, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge/redirect to Association of Baptist Churches in Ireland, where the few notable examples can be listed/linked if they aren't already (Category:Association of Baptist Churches in Ireland churches has three articles apart from this list). I don't see a reason why we'd list every nonnotable church for this organization rather than summarizing with numbers and geographic distribution, and notable/significant examples only. postdlf (talk) 19:47, 30 January 2020 (UTC) (and yes I've just copied and pasted the same !vote I entered in the previous AFD)[reply]
Merge to Association of Baptist Churches in Ireland, there's room for the list in 3 columns there or alternatively a prose summary as outlined above, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:51, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Spleodrach (talk) 10:35, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:55, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; completely fails WP:LISTN as there are no bluelinks here. Having said that, recommend closer allow userification or draftification, on request, at WP:REFUND if someone wants this list of Ireland churches to add to an existing list. Doug Mehus T·C 01:51, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:52, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Academy Awards Most Nominations, and Most Wins

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced list. Seems like this should be covered in the Academy Awards article. I doubt that there is any independent notability. b uidhe 05:43, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. b uidhe 05:43, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. b uidhe 05:43, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:53, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Already exists at List of films with the most Academy Awards per ceremony. Reywas92^Talk 06:20, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Already covered in the above article, this one offers nothing of value to add to it. Ajf773 (talk) 08:30, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As pointed out, Wikipedia already has a list with this information, making this one redundant. There is no additional sourced content here that needs to be merged, and as this article title is an unlikely search term, no redirection is necessary.
Delete per WP:FORK. Bearian (talk) 21:04, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as Reywas has stated: this already exists. Wm335td (talk) 21:26, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Bordering on keep per PROF. I'm not deleting per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE because I cannot verify that Dyling123 is or represents the subject. Sandstein 12:53, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Xinsheng Ling

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Dyling123, a major contributor to this article who claims to be the creator (it was created by an IP), has requested deletion on behalf of the subject on their talk page [34]. The subject clearly meets the requirements of WP:PROF. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:14, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Espresso Addict (talk) 05:14, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A Fellow of the American Physical Society seems notable enough to merit an article (WP:PROF criterion 3 to be specific). ElKevbo (talk) 03:36, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:PROF. If there's any private information, such as a direct email/website, please identify and remove. Bearian (talk) 21:07, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, Fellowship in the APS (easily verified via their website) would qualify for wiki-notability per WP:PROF#C3. It would help to know why the creator wishes the article deleted, since it looks about as uncontroversial and boilerplate as his faculty profile. XOR'easter (talk) 21:06, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure. I checked the article over for anything remotely personal or controversial but saw nothing except the date of birth, which could be changed to the year. However there have been repeated attempts to blank the article or remove material going back to Dec 2018 and Dyling123 states on their talk page that the subject requests deletion. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:12, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think WP:NPROF allows us to count the faculty profile as one source, but we still need one (two would better per WP:THREE) that is about the subject. I keep coming back to nutshell point #1 of WP:NPROF, which I don't think is passed. Doug Mehus T·C 03:19, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Espresso Addict. Fails WP:GNG. There's only one article that even comes close to reliable, independent source coverage in the Boston BizJournal here and even, then, it may be non-qualifying trivial coverage. The two "keep" !votes are (a) reminded this is not a vote and (b) that passing an SNG like WP:NPROF does not confer WP:Notability. It's more or less a rough guideline that, typically, professors are notable, but they are, expressly and unequivocally, not substitutes for WP:GNG. This professor has lots of co-author mentions in research papers and for writing chapters of textbooks, but there's nothing about him that is both in-depth and at length. Thus, it's a hard delete. I don't see any other way this can close, to be honest; failing that,

Löschen per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE and my comments to Espresso Addict below. This article is of marginal quality and importance to the encyclopedia, at best, and nothing will be lost from deletion. If closing admin wishes to verify, through Oversight, the subject's identity (although the username does suggest a link), that is fine; however, in that event, I think we should draftify pending verification from Oversight so it's not indexed by Google. --Doug Mehus T·C 03:35, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have always read that WP:PROF is an alternative GNG for people who unequivocally fall under it? That's certainly what it currently states. Otherwise I suspect ~99% of our coverage of living academics is deletable, which would be a bit depressing. Perhaps DGG or another expert could clarify? Espresso Addict (talk) 02:12, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Espresso Addict, We've had that debate at DRV a number of times. DGG is a good possibility, as are @S Marshall and Bearcat:. I don't think it's an alternative to GNG, but rather the SNG is like a guideline (an essay, within the policy, if you will) that says they're likely to be notable but is not a substitute. Doug Mehus T·C 02:37, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, a lot of our biographies, arguably, are delete-able. I'm not sure what the exact numbers are, but I wager there's, conservatively, ~5-10% of our 6 million articles that fail WP:GNG—most of it probably companies and some biographies. Doug Mehus T·C 02:39, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also note the "general notes," particularly the latter one, which states, "Note that this is a guideline and not a rule; exceptions may exist. Some academics may not meet any of these criteria, but may still be notable for their academic work. It is very difficult to make clear requirements in terms of number/quality of publications. The criteria, in practice, vary greatly by field and are determined by precedent and consensus. Also, this guideline sets the bar fairly low, which is natural; to a degree, academics live in the public arena, trying to influence others with their ideas. It is natural that successful ones should be considered notable." Doug Mehus T·C 02:41, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, FWIW, when googling my current history instructor, I noticed Craig Keating, who was previously a municipal councillor, had his article PRODed per WP:NPOLITICIAN but, equally so, he wouldn't pass WP:GNG and he is also a professor/instructor, so I really don't think the SNGs are a substitute for the GNG. Doug Mehus T·C 02:44, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not an expert in historians, but I don't see Professor Keating's citation record as meeting WP:PROF at present, so I am not sure how useful a comparator he makes. Espresso Addict (talk) 02:59, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability, referred to above, states that a topic is presumed to be notable if It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right, the very first of which is WP:PROF. Subject-specific guidelines are, explicitly, alternatives to the GNG. And this individual evidently meets WP:PROF. XOR'easter (talk) 03:06, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's the debate; there's no consensus on that. Doug Mehus T·C 03:08, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

XOR'easter, From the nutshell of WP:NPROF, it states, "Subjects of biographical articles on Wikipedia are required to be notable; that is significant, interesting, or unusual enough to be worthy of notice, as evidenced by being the subject of significant coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources." In short, WP:NPROF lets us count the fact they're a professor as one of the sources, but they still need to be the subject of one or more reliable, independent sources on which to write more than a perpetual stub-class article saying so-and-so exists and is a professor. Doug Mehus T·C 03:14, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And the very next line of the nutshell says, Many scientists, researchers, philosophers, and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources. When comparing against the lengthy history of AfD's on academics and educators, it is absolutely clear that Xinsheng Ling passes WP:PROF and qualifies for an article. It's the criteria in WP:PROF that are passed or failed (and only passing one of them is necessary), not the nutshell bullet points, which merely summarize what the guideline itself explains in greater depth. The question is how passing WP:PROF stacks up against WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. XOR'easter (talk) 03:22, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But that second line is a guideline; it's not a rule, therein lies the difference. At the end of the day, we don't have to resolve the GNG or SNG debate today for the purposes of this AfD, if the subject has requested deletion, we should honour it. The article, as written is of marginal importanance—at best—to the encyclopedia as his notability level (assuming it exists) is not great. In short, nothing will be lost from deletion. If the administrator wants to involve Oversight to verify the subject's identity, that's fine, but I'm willing to take the subject's request to Espresso Addict at his word. Doug Mehus T·C 03:31, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Espresso Addict, True...he's probably not many papers to his name, though I assumed that the number of papers one is cited in doesn't count for anything really other than establishing the subject's occupation and potentially to a bit of trivia in the section on their research, if they meet our notability standards. And, of course, the citations help to establish the professor as an authoritative source in their field in terms of being able to use them or quote them in related articles, but beyond that, I don't know that one's citations from OrcID or CrossRef count at all, really, towards notability. Doug Mehus T·C 03:07, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is where we definitely differ, Dmehus -- I look to citation record (or at least the best Google Scholar can do as a proxy) to assess whether the subject meets WP:PROF #1, both at AfD and when creating biographical articles. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:13, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but see my above reply to XOR'easter. I don't think we can discount nutshell point #1 of WP:NPROF. There's no other significant coverage beyond the primary source biography of this professor. I think we need one other, in-depth and at-length source about the professor to pass WP:NPROF. Doug Mehus T·C 03:17, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with this interpretation of WP:PROF, and I think that you will find many others in this forum do. However, I don't think it is particularly relevant here. There is independent coverage (see my note below), there is the APS fellowship with its citation, the citation record seems strong... the questions seem to me to be (1) whether the subject is sufficiently notable to require an article even though an editor states that the subject requests deletion; and (2) whether consensus is that Dyling123 actually represents the subject's wishes. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:28, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your lecturing of the (very experienced) editors who have voiced a different opinion is misplaced and inappropriate. Additionally, it's inappropriate for you to have posted two separate !votes; I recommend reformatting your initial response so it's clear to the closer that you're making an extended argument and not attempting to mislead anyone with multiple !votes. ElKevbo (talk) 03:59, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think everyone here's been round the block more than a few times, and Doug's comments are only signed once, so should not pose too much of a headache for the closing admin. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:55, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ETA: By the way, if you use the full name "Xinsheng Sean Ling" there appears to be some coverage eg of his work [35] and of his former company [36] (and other similar). Espresso Addict (talk) 02:40, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
First, WP:PROF is an alternative. The status of some of the other SNGs may be debatable, but this has been firmly settled for the last 12 years or so. The criterion for whether someone is regarded as an authority is the same as that used in the academic world. The basic way of determining this in the sciences and other fields where research is publishedin periodical articles, is the citations to the pere-reviewed particles representing the scientist's original research. The convenient way to determine this is Google Scholar. In field where ones original work is published in books, we go principally by book reviews, and sometimes also by citations or library holdings.

These ae not absolute numbers, but are compared with work of other s in the field. The expectedcitations in a field depends upon the publication and citation density--how much is published, and how many articles each publication cites. As a rough guide, in biomedical sciences, the field where people publish as many papers as possible, and cite other papers exhaustively, it's generally accepted here that 1 or 2 papers with citations over 100 are evidence of notability. The number of articles or citations is irrelevant (though universities PR people usually give them, because the numbers sound impressive.) One does not become notable by doing a great deal of unimportant work which makes no impact on the field, but by doing very important work that influences many other researchers.

I consider it not at all the case that we need significant coverage by a third party source to meet WP:PROF, and I do not think that Expesso Addict would be able to find more than a few stray examples of afds determined in that fashion. We do needs ome evidence of who the person is, and any reliable source will do for the identification. DGG ( talk ) 04:02, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, DGG. Popular areas of physics seem fairly exhaustively cited too, and some of Ling's work appears to fall under DNA sequencing. But in terms of WP:PROF, the fellowship of the APS alone seems adequate; I assume their systems are far better than ours for assessing truly important contributions to the field. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:55, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clear things up:
- We should be following consensus of the community rather than bickering over the text.
- The latest consensus IIRC is here, which resulted in clear consensus that PROF is not subversive to GNG.

—J 947 ^{^{^(c)}}, at 04:46, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. on the basis of the fellowship of the APS. The purpose of this part of the WP:PROF standard is as a shortcut--any fellow of the APS or NAS or AAAS will be so notable, that there's no point even looking for citations.

Since we're having the discussion, the justification behind WP:PROF is that almost no notable professors get genuine press coverage (as distinct from coverage instigated by their university's PR office) unless they are actuall famous. But the standard for inclusion in WP isn't famous, and if we followed GNG in this fashion we'd have everyone in all fields who is even barely notable and for researchers, only the famous. It would be essentially equivalent in impact to our not covering state but only federal legislators, or only athletes who win 1st place in the olympics, or only the film actors who win an academy award. Had this not carried, I and some of the others interested in this proposed that we intended to justify notability by looking for third party comments about hte people's work in the papers by other people that cited them. Not every citation includes a substantial discussion of the work; it differs by field, but in most fields perhaps 10% of them do. That means that the standard for notability of scientists would be that they published 1 paper referred to be 20 people, or 10 papers referred to by 2 people each. This is a very low standard, and would cover almsot all assistant professors at a research university, and a tens of thousands of post-docs and graduate students. :::The real reason for WP:PROF is that WP should reflect the real world. The academic world has its standards, and they depend on publication and citation. The standard used by a university like MIT and Cambridge and Peking for notability is a more reliable guide than ours. Their faculty are better able to judge notability than we are. So, under the current interpretation for the other SNGs, academic are the one field where notability in WP is equivalent to importance in the RW. I've been advocating for the past 11 years that other fields follow our example, and have a rational standard, not a standard that has no meaning outside WP. DGG ( talk ) 05:02, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Thanks, DGG, for the clarification on the role of SNGs and GNG. It will be interesting to see if S Marshall or Bearcat decide to share their thoughts on GNG/SNGs. Nevertheless, this very short stub-class article adds very little value to the encyclopedia and nothing would be lost by a WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE deletion. I would note, too, that no editors have specifically opposed deletion on WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE deletion grounds, and two editors (myself included) are or seem supportive of granting such a request. I think, out of respect, that's something we have to consider here, and if the closing administrator wants to involve Oversight to verify the requestor's identity, as I said above, that is fine, but since it's been requested, we should be draftify-ing this at least until (a) Oversight verifies the identity of the requestor and closes as "delete" (in such a case, I'd support administrator-level salt-ing of the Main: namespace article title or (b) the requestor doesn't respond to Oversight's request within the requisite guided timeline and moves the draftified article back to the Main: namespace. --Doug Mehus T·C 11:42, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:52, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michigan fossil hunting

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of any notability. Reads like a manual for amateur geologists. The article admits that Michigan isn't know for its fossils and many of the sites listed are sites where limestone has been imported into the state. The sources just illustrate some fossils that have been found. Appears to be a medium to post a book advert. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 05:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 05:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 05:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or partial merge to Paleontology in Michigan. Largely OR how-to guide. Reywas92^Talk 05:26, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Paleontology in Michigan. This is a redundant fork of Paleontology in Michigan, comprised mainly of unsourced or WP:OR information. So, I don't really think anything needs to be merged. Though I have my doubts, if other editors think that the title would be a logical search term, I have no problem with redirecting to the main article. Rorshacma (talk) 22:01, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reads like a field guide or instruction manual. Glendoremus (talk) 16:46, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or possibly redirect per WP:FORK. Bearian (talk) 21:06, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to List of crime bosses. If people consider the redirect useless, it can be listed at WP:RFD Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:53, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of crime bosses convicted in the 21st century

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to meet WP:LISTN in how a list of crime bosses is specifically notable for being convicted in the 21st century. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 03:36, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:24, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:24, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:24, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:25, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Crime boss" is too imprecise a term.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:09, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of crime bosses. Note that there are no similar lists for other centuries or time periods. Pburka (talk) 00:04, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- That's why I decided to go this route—not sure how a redirect under this title to that page would be particularly useful. Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 00:55, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I propose it because any user can boldly redirect without needing to create an AfD discussion. See WP:ATD-R. Pburka (talk) 02:59, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of crime bosses Lightburst (talk) 02:43, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- LOL Vaselineeeeeeee^★★★ 03:14, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:45, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brent Armitage

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable actor / producer. He is the son of director George Armitage, but I do not think that Brent has any independent notability. Natg 19 (talk) 03:02, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 03:02, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 03:02, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 03:04, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete: As an actor, all his work has been uncredited, except for a seemingly small part in the very notable Grosse Pointe Blank. In terms of working as a producer, he was an associate producer for "Grosse Pointe Blank" and an executive producer in another very notable film, The Big Bounce—he was not "the" producer, as the article implies. His work, albeit in two well-known films, seems a little too minor to me to sustain an article. Dflaw4 (talk) 04:27, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:50, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:15, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:53, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aahvaan

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to pass WP:Notability (films) for future/undistributed films — Preceding unsigned comment added by MapleSoy (talk • contribs)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:56, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:56, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:04, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete I couldnt find any coverage of the film in reliable sources, hence the film doesn't pass the general notability guidelines. Whatever there is, seeme to be press releases, or paid articles. One source used in the article says they are the media partner of the film. I couldnt find the release date anywhere, not even on that media partner's website; excluding IMDB. Overall, the film also fails notability guidelines for future films. On another note, it was created by SPA. —usernamekiran (talk) 17:41, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No coverage on the internet for this movie. Clearly fails WP:MOVIE. GargAvinash (talk) 05:06, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 12:44, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Terra the Gunslinger

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article on a commercial product is sourced to a one-sentence mention on Greg Stafford's personal blog. A BEFORE on Google News, Google Books, JSTOR and newspapers.com fails to find additional references. I've checked all the usual Japanese sources and also failed to located any. Fails GNG. Chetsford (talk) 00:19, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Chetsford (talk) 00:19, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:16, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NOTABLE and related policies. ωικιωαrrιorᑫᑫ1ᑫ 17:54, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.